I've been dropped a very strong hint by my storyguide that we are going to be dealing with demons shortly. I'm fairly new to the game, and my research into this has brought up a raft of questions. It's more on the rules than on the actions to take; any help would be greatly appreciated.

Situation is that we have a covenant full of new mages, all aged about 30-35, no more than ten years past gauntlet, and none with more than a few months of playing experience. We started on 4th ed, are now on 5th; I have core rules, the SG probably has all sorts of sneaky extra stuff. Covenant has an aegis at level 20. There's a diabolist out there who is threatening us, and needs to be eliminated.

I take it that the agis will keep us safe from direct attacks in the covenant, though there are any number of indirect vulnerabilities, unless we get a demon of might >20 coming in. I imagine we're going to need to track down the diabolist and fight in a diabolic aura at some stage, though.

The obvious first step is to learn Demon's Eternal Oblivion, which leads to the first question: am I right in thinking that the more powerful the demon, the lower level you want to know this spell at, in order to get the penetration? Given a casting score of say 15 plus stress die, I'd only use a level 10 version on a might 10 demon, and level 5 or less on a more powerful one.

That then leads on to spell mastery: the multicasting ability seems to be ideal. If I master a level 5 spell, it appears that I can cast it several times at the same demon at a mere -1 to targeting (which may well be irrelevant anyway). The way to kill a big demon is therefore to subject it to a barrage of level 5 spells, getting high penetration and cumulative damage. That leads on to some queries:

- Multiple casting lets me do 1 copy per level of mastery. I assume that the copies are in addition to the original: ie level one lets me cast the spell twice?
- Can one combine mastery abilities, say by fast-casting a spell four times at +3 penetration if one has mastery of 3?
- If I master the level 5 version of Eternal Oblivion, have I also mastered the level 10 version or do I need to start from scratch on mastering it?
- Mastery is an ability, and abilities normally have specialisations. Can one get such a specialisation in spell mastery, and what form would it take? Could it be, say, multiple casting, so 5xp would get level 1 mastery, counted as 2 for multicasting?

Cheers,

Pell.R.

//am I right in thinking that the more powerful the demon, the lower level you want to know this spell at, in order to get the penetration?//
Quite right.

//- Multiple casting lets me do 1 copy per level of mastery. I assume that the copies are in addition to the original: ie level one lets me cast the spell twice?//
In the description of Multiple Casting on ArM5 p. 87: "You can cast several copies of a single mastered spell so that ... You may cast a number of copies of the spell equal to or less than your Mastery Score" the first use of 'copies' defines also the meaning of its second use. Hence you can at level one only cast the spell once. So Multiple casting makes sense only if you intend to push the Mastery beyond level one - but then it becomes very powerful, as you already have found out.

//- Can one combine mastery abilities, say by fast-casting a spell four times at +3 penetration if one has mastery of 3?//
Nearly: you can multicast three copies, each with +3 Penetration.

//- If I master the level 5 version of Eternal Oblivion, have I also mastered the level 10 version or do I need to start from scratch on mastering it?//
Yes, *if* you are a Mercere magus from the Cult of Mercury and have mastered one Eternal Oblivion spell with the Special Ability Adaptive Casting (see TL p.99). No otherwise.

//- Mastery is an ability, and abilities normally have specialisations. Can one get such a specialisation in spell mastery, and what form would it take? Could it be, say, multiple casting, so 5xp would get level 1 mastery, counted as 2 for multicasting?//
AFAICS No. Judging from the example magus on ArM5 p.34f, the Special Abilities themselves are the specializations for a Mastery Ability. Their effect, however, is not that of normal specializations which improve an ability score for special tasks. Rather they allow you to use these Special Abilities at all.

Kind regards,

Berengar

/// //- Multiple casting lets me do 1 copy per level of mastery. I assume that the copies are in addition to the original: ie level one lets me cast the spell twice?//
In the description of Multiple Casting on ArM5 p. 87: "You can cast several copies of a single mastered spell so that ... You may cast a number of copies of the spell equal to or less than your Mastery Score" the first use of 'copies' defines also the meaning of its second use. Hence you can at level one only cast the spell once. So Multiple casting makes sense only if you intend to push the Mastery beyond level one - but then it becomes very powerful, as you already have found out.///

I disgree. At Mastery Level 1 (Multicast), you can cast the spell twice: 1 original and 1 "copy". To interpret otherwise means that Multicast is the only specialization that doesn't grant a bonus or effect at Mastery Level 1. That doesn't make sense.

///- Can one combine mastery abilities, say by fast-casting a spell four times at +3 penetration if one has mastery of 3?//

I believe Berengar is correct as far as the letter of the rules go, in that nothing is implied that would prevent using all known specializations when casting a spell.

Personally, I don't allow Fast-Cast to stack with Multi-Cast.

//That doesn't make sense.//

Why? Multiple Casting is extremely powerful at high levels of Mastery Ability - as Pellinor found out at once.
There is no reason to deviate from the written rule because it //doesn't grant a bonus or effect at Mastery Level 1//: Adaptive Casting from TL p.99 doesn't either.

Kind regards,

Berengar

//Personally, I don't allow Fast-Cast to stack with Multi-Cast.//

That Fast Casting cannot be combined with several other Mastery Special Abilities (like Multiple Casting, Quiet Casting and Still Casting) is supported by the wording of the rules for the Fast Casting Special Ability: "... may Fast Cast the mastered spell according to the rules for Fast Casting Spontaneous spells, on page 83", since Fast Casting on p.83 is a special spell casting procedure with its own strict limitations, like: "always cast with a firm voice and bold gestures, and the maga may not exploit any other spellcasting options, as there is not enough time".
That this procedure is explicitly referenced on p.87 supports the reading that its limitations also hold for the Special Ability Fast Casting, unless explicitly waived in its description.

Kind regards,

Berengar

Berengar has answered this question well enough that I have nothing to contribute in terms of rules. However i do have a random comment/opinion to add to the mix.

There are various net-grimoires out there and these public grimoires have become the home of numerous home grown spells. One of the points that has always bothered me when I read these spells is that very often someone would simply take a spell that already exits in Ars Magica and bump the level up so they can get 'more' of the same effect.

I have always felt that the authors of these beefed up spells have no grasp of how multicasting works.

It was a true pleasure to see someone suggest taking a *lower* level spell affect so they can multi cast more often. It's the first time in a long time I thought, "That's the way to do it!"

Chuck

Hey, I just noticed we both have user names of Arthurian knights! Mine was evil though. :-D

>> The obvious first step is to learn Demon's Eternal Oblivion

Yup. You might also want some Rego Vim spells for defense. I hate it when the demons start possessing my grogs. ;-D

>> - Can one combine mastery abilities, say by fast-casting a spell four times at +3 penetration if one has mastery of 3?

I believe so, but keep in mind that the -10 fast-casting penalty is going to hose your Penetration. I think you'll get more mileage from Penetration as a mastery ability.

Don't overlook the potential of charged items. They cost no vis to create and the rules do allow you to build Penetration into an item. If not everyone in your covenant is a whiz at Perdo Vim, this may be a way to outfit the less puissant demon-hunters among you. Say you want a DEO (that's Demon's Eternal Oblivion) with a Penetration of 20 and you have decent Perdo and Vim scores - say they add up to 29. Well, you can invent a level 10 spell easily enough, or you can probably scrape together a Lab Total of 50 (say aura of 4, Int of 3, Magic Theory of 5, and make a diamond-tipped wand for +9 Shape and Material bonus; if you're too poor to get diamonds, use a lab helper instead). That would let you make a charged wand with the following properties: Level 20, Penetration 20, 6 uses per day (for a Level of 33), and 4 charges. Yeah, it takes a whole season to create and it's only got 4 shots, but it hits a lot harder than any spell a young magus could cast. Any demon of might <= 20 is kaput in one shot.

And if you like what the charged wand can do, think what you could achieve with an invested device. (No this is not recruitment spam for the Verditius mystery cult =)

///I have always felt that the authors of these beefed up spells have no grasp of how multicasting works.

It was a true pleasure to see someone suggest taking a *lower* level spell affect so they can multi cast more often. It's the first time in a long time I thought, "That's the way to do it!"///

5th Ed. has changed this aspect of spells significantly. In 4th Ed. and earlier, the more powerful the demon, the more powerful the spell you would want to attack it with, as the full casting total determined penetration. Since spell level (in 5th Ed.) now subtracts from penetration, going up against anything with a significant magic resistance necessitates the user of lower level spells (or sympathetic connections).

The level of the spell has no bearing on the ability to multi-cast it, other than normal spell failure if your roll misses the spell level by more than 10. Having a lower level spell, in that regard, doesn't allow you to cast it any more often than having a higher level spell would.

In my saga, every magus (out of 5) took either 'Pilum of Fire' or 'Ball of Abysmal Flame' (or both) at character creation, wanting the powerful attack spells in their arsenals. After going up against another apprentice with Parma and skill equal to theirs, and getting whipped by his multi-cast 'The Wound That Weeps' while their Balls of Abysmal Flame had no effect, every one of them is now planning on studying and mastering 'The Wound That Weeps'.

In terms of attacking, yes in the older games it would pay to build a superversion of Demon's Oblivion. What I was imagined was something like (I forget the spell name) but the spell that allowed you to put two words into the mind of another. I've found numerous super versions of this spell so a magus could say a sentence or a paragraph or even more. Under the old guidelines it was still cheaper to use the lower level spell and multicast it. I never understood the need to make a beefed up version. It was a pet peeve I wanted to voice. I guess I'm saying Ars5, yeah!

Chuck

///What I was imagined was something like (I forget the spell name) but the spell that allowed you to put two words into the mind of another. I've found numerous super versions of this spell so a magus could say a sentence or a paragraph or even more. Under the old guidelines it was still cheaper to use the lower level spell and multicast it. I never understood the need to make a beefed up version.///

Interesting. I don't know if I would allow multi-casting a spell like that to be used in the manner you describe.

Well part of me feels this is academic. I'm complaining about old versions of the game, which I think were open to a more liberal interpretation of how things worked.

In Ars 5 if someone multicast (is it?) Words of Unbroken Silence on the same target, the way I read it the spell affect would likely send the same message (two words) at the same time into the one targets mind. This is essentially redundant.

So in Ars5, keeping to my example, these beefed up spells actually have merit. In the older versions, I wasn't so sure.

For what it's worth this probably isn't the best example, it's just the first one that came to mind. Furthermore as I mentioned, I felt cause to voice a previous peeve as well as praise that someone saw the effectiveness of low level spells.

Debating how correct I am over the interpretation of defunct rules is an interesting excercise that I'm willing to engage in if necessary, but I hope we can find um, more current material to discuss.

Chuck

///Why? Multiple Casting is extremely powerful at high levels of Mastery Ability - as Pellinor found out at once.
There is no reason to deviate from the written rule because it //doesn't grant a bonus or effect at Mastery Level 1//: Adaptive Casting from TL p.99 doesn't either.///

I don't follow? How do you interpret that Adaptive Casting doesn't grant any bonus at Mastery Level 1? Granted, there wouldn't be any other specializations that carried over, but that is only one aspect of this ability. You would still get to add your Mastery Score to casting rolls... you would still get to reduce Botch dice... and you can still roll a stress die in non-stressful situations without the possibility of a Botch. All of this, in addition to the fact you only have to master one spell and have all of its affects applied to all variants that you know.

This seems like quite a benefit, even at Mastery Level 1.

Finally, I am not deviating from the written rules regarding Multiple Casting. My interpretation that Multiple Casting at Mastery Level 1 allows you to cast the spell twice is perfectly valid. We are simply interpreting the wording of "copies" differently. You obviously feel the term "copies" is meant to include the initial, original spell. I feel it does not. The copies are just that, additional copies of the original, which will also be cast.

If you choose to interpret that the intent of the authors was that a magus who masters the spell with Multiple Casting at level 1 would be no better off than the magus who does not master it at all, so be it. It's your saga. I'm just glad you aren't my Storyguide.

//You obviously feel the term "copies" is meant to include the initial, original spell. I feel it does not. The copies are just that, additional copies of the original, which will also be cast.//
The wording of the rule from ArM5 is: "You can cast several copies of a single mastered spell so that it affects more people, objects or areas (as applicable) than normal. A single target may also be affected more than once. You may cast a number of copies of the spell equal to or less than your mastery score."
As I already tried to explain above, the meaning of the second use of 'copies' in this paragraph is defined by the first use of it. And the first use does not distinguish between 'original' spell and 'additional' copies. Otherwise it would have been written "You can cast *additional* copies of a single mastered spell ..." or such. So the second use of 'copies' also does not make this distinction, and the number of copies includes the original spell as well.

//If you choose to interpret that the intent of the authors was that a magus who masters the spell with Multiple Casting at level 1 would be no better off than the magus who does not master it at all, so be it.//
To answer with your own words: //How do you interpret that// this //doesn't grant any bonus at Mastery Level 1? Granted, there wouldn't be any// //specializations that carried over, but that is only one aspect of this ability. You would still get to add your Mastery Score to casting rolls... you would still get to reduce Botch dice... and you can still roll a stress die in non-stressful situations without the possibility of a Botch.//

Kind regards,

Berengar

/// //You obviously feel the term "copies" is meant to include the initial, original spell. I feel it does not. The copies are just that, additional copies of the original, which will also be cast.//
The wording of the rule from ArM5 is: "You can cast several copies of a single mastered spell so that it affects more people, objects or areas (as applicable) than normal. A single target may also be affected more than once. You may cast a number of copies of the spell equal to or less than your mastery score."
As I already tried to explain above, the meaning of the second use of 'copies' in this paragraph is defined by the first use of it. And the first use does not distinguish between 'original' spell and 'additional' copies. Otherwise it would have been written "You can cast *additional* copies of a single mastered spell ..." or such. So the second use of 'copies' also does not make this distinction, and the number of copies includes the original spell as well. ///

Please tell me your entire argument doesn't come down to some "letter of the law" scrutiny of the written text? That the ommission of the word "additional" isn't the irrefutable proof of your cause? Or that you are privy to how it would have been written if the author had intended anything other than your personal interpretation?

Come on, now. I can respect that you interpret the meaning of "copies" differently, but don't use some iron-fisted wording of the text as your defense of the interpretation. "Copies" in and of itself is not that definitive of a definition. I can take a document down to the nearest Kinkos and make two copies of it and I now have three instances of that document, not two. In casual conversation, I could say it is three copies of the same document and pretty much anyone would get the point, but a literal understanding would indicate there are only 2 copies, plus the original. I'll agree that the wording could have been more specific, or an irrefutable example provided, but this is a game manual, not some religious text that is beyond the scrutiny or infallibilty of man. If you asked 10 different authors to write three paragraphs explaining Multiple Casting, you would get ten different wordings; and narrow interpetation of the specific wordings of each would likely lead to conflicting interpetations of the "rules", even though the spirit and intent is the same for each.

Or, do you suggest that Ars Magic 5th Edition is so perfect in its wording and grammar that it leaves no room for clarification or doubt?

/// //If you choose to interpret that the intent of the authors was that a magus who masters the spell with Multiple Casting at level 1 would be no better off than the magus who does not master it at all, so be it.//
To answer with your own words: //How do you interpret that// this //doesn't grant any bonus at Mastery Level 1? Granted, there wouldn't be any// //specializations that carried over, but that is only one aspect of this ability. You would still get to add your Mastery Score to casting rolls... you would still get to reduce Botch dice... and you can still roll a stress die in non-stressful situations without the possibility of a Botch.// ///

Touche. You have used my words against me, rather than address the spirit of the argument. I'll have to keep your prevalence for the "letter of the law" in mind when I make subsequent statements.

The point being, you previously used Adaptive Casting as support for stating Multiple Casting at Mastery Level 1 shouldn't be expected to provide any benefit on its own. My response refutes this and shows that at Mastery Level 1, Adaptive Casting (in and of itself) does indeed provide a benefit.

Above, you use the fact that Mastery Level 1 still gives you casting and Botch dice benefits, but that has nothing to do with the Multiple Casting specialization. You opened the comparison between Multiple Casting and Adaptive Casting, and now are trying to close it like some kind of logic trap, but the comparison does not support your position.

//Please tell me your entire argument doesn't come down to some "letter of the law" scrutiny of the written text?//
Pellinor asked for an explanation of the rules for Multiple Casting in ArM5. Not for my houserules. Not for your assumed intent.
There not being any FAQ-comment or erratum AFAIK, all I had to go on is the written rules. So it indeed boiled down to scrutinizing these closely and precisely.

//You have used my words against me, rather than address the spirit of the argument.//
//The point being, you previously used Adaptive Casting as support for stating Multiple Casting at Mastery Level 1 shouldn't be expected to provide any benefit on its own. My response refutes this and shows that at Mastery Level 1, Adaptive Casting (in and of itself) does indeed provide a benefit.//
When I brought up Adaptive Casting, the spirit of my argument was that you had to make up your mind.
Either additions to casting score and less botches are benefits of their own for you. Then taking your first Mastery level with either Adaptive Casting or Multiple Casting - both suboptimal choices coming into their own only at higher Mastery level - provides benefit.
Or such things are no benefits of their own for you. Then a first Mastery level with Adaptive Casting or Multiple Casting does not provide benefits.

//I'll have to keep your prevalence for the "letter of the law" in mind when I make subsequent statements.//
I'd have you rather keep in mind, that answering somebody's post with a //That doesn't make sense.// (http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=683.3) might get you very precise and carefully considered answers afterwards, but not necessarily sympathy or tolerance for oversights.

Kind regards,

Berengar

Here once more the rule, to facilitate reading: "You can cast several copies of a single mastered spell so that it affects more people, objects or areas (as applicable) than normal. A single target may also be affected more than once. You may cast a number of copies of the spell equal to or less than your mastery score."

//The first use of the word copies is "you can cast several *copies* of a single mastered spell...", in what way does this wording signify that the original needs to be counted as one of these copies?//
AFAICS there is no reference to an 'original' in the above rule at all.
It states that you can cast copies: not an 'original', not in addition to an 'original' - just identical copies of a spell but for potentially different targets. Then in the last phrase of the paragraph the number of copies you can cast is defined.

Kind regards,

Berengar

///Then a first Mastery level with Adaptive Casting or Multiple Casting does not provide benefits.///

This will be my last post on the subject. Feel free to have the final word.

I think you need to reread the section on Adaptive Casting, because your statements "make no sense" in light of what that specialization does. Twice now I have tried to point out the specific difference between your interpretation of Multiple Casting and Adaptive Casting, in that Adaptive Casting does provide benefits at Mastery 1, yet you continue to say that a magus gains no benefit (in and of the specialization itself) by selecting either as his Mastery 1 ability.

I don't say this to be rude, but that is blatantly wrong. From the wording of Multiple Casting, it is reasonable enough to see how you come up with your interpretation. I haven't argued against the possibility that your interpretation may be correct (although I do strongly belive you are wrong), but the only support you have provided to strengthen your argument (other than your interpretation of the specific wording)is the comparison of Multiple Casting with Adaptive Casting, to counter my assertation that no other specialization provides no benefit at Mastery 1.

IMHO, the fact that you are wrong - yet adamant - about Adaptive Casting weakens your credibility on Multiple Casting.

Here is my final attempt to illustrate this for you:

A magus knows Demon's Eternal Oblivion 10 (DEO-10) and Demon's Eternal Oblivion 20 (DEO-20). If the magus masters DEO-10 at level 1, and chooses Penetration as his mastery ability, he gets a +1 to his casting total, rolls one less botch die, and always rolls stress whenever he casts DEO-10. However, he gets no benefit when casting DEO-20.

On the other hand, if he chooses Adaptive Casting as his mastery level 1 ability, he still gets +1 to his casting roll, rolls one less botch die, and always rolls stress whenever casting DEO-10... but he now ALSO gets +1 to his casting rolls, rolls one less botch die, and always rolls stress when casting DEO-20. At mastery level 2 for DEO-10, he selects Penetration, and now he still gets all of the previous benefits, but in addition, he may now apply his Penetration specialization to both DEO-10 and DEO-20.

Now, can you still say that at mastery level 1 there is no benefit from Adaptive Casting?

Finally, you have fixated on the word "copies" as the definitive term that explains how Multiple Casting works. I, however, feel that this single word is insufficient to draw such stark conclusions. Taking the entire first sentence, however, provides amble evidence of the intent of the authors: "You can cast several copies of a single mastered spell so that it affects more people, objects, or areas (as applicable) than normal."

Under your interpretation, at mastery level 1, this ability DOES NOT allow you to affect more people, objects, or places than normal. That is a contradiction of what is stated.

//Now, can you still say that at mastery level 1 there is no benefit from Adaptive Casting?//
It gives you the same kind of thing at Mastery level 1 than you get from Mastery level 1 with Multiple Casting: improved casting totals and less botches. So it is obvious that either both is nothing, or both is something. You choose. It is not of further importance for the real argument.

For ease of reading once again the entire rule: "You can cast several copies of a single mastered spell so that it affects more people, objects or areas (as applicable) than normal. A single target may also be affected more than once. You may cast a number of copies of the spell equal to or less than your mastery score."

//Taking the entire first sentence, however, provides amble evidence of the intent of the authors: <snip, see above>.
Under your interpretation, at mastery level 1, this ability DOES NOT allow you to affect more people, objects, or places than normal. That is a contradiction of what is stated.//
Do I really need to state that one has to read an entire rule in context, and not just a part of it? The number of copies to be cast is plainly stated, leaving no room for your interpretation of "more ... than normal". And not even a passing hint is made at 'originals', or at copies being additional to something else also cast. So nothing else is cast but copies.

Assume you read an advertisement:
"Special promotional offer! For the price of one subscription you can now get several copies of each issue of the Times, so that at your household more people than normal can read it. You may get a number of copies of the Times equal to or less than your level in our customer rating."
Now how many copies of the Times can you get every day for the price of one, if your Times customer rating level is 1? One, right? Would you sue the Times now?

Kind regards,

Berengar

Oops, I'm sure the can didn't say "Worms" on it when I opened it! :-D

Speaking as one who deals with ambiguously-drafted legislation as my day job, I can see that you both have a point. Were I arguing this out with HM Inspector of Taxes, I could happily argue either side of the question.

Applying the normal rules of statutory construction (I'm applying my England and Wales Law score here, but my Tax specialisation probably doesn't apply), the word "copies" is the key, and leads to an ambiguity. We therefore have recourse to the purposive principle, and seek to discern the intention of the draftsman. Without Hansard to refer to, the only relevant bit seems to be the bit in the description of the ability which says "You can cast [a] mastered spell so that it affects more people, objects or areas (as applicable) than normal.".

As Nzld says, at mastery 1 this is only true if the copies are in addition to the original. I would therefore interpret the rule as "You may cast Mastery + 1 examples of the spell simultaneously"; I now need to take this to the SG.

To take the newspaper example: you never normally buy or have any access to the original of a written work, you only ever buy copies. This usage of "copies" is therefore not a direct parallel.

Thanks for the debate, though: very interesting reading.

Cheers,

Pell.R.

>> It was a true pleasure to see someone suggest taking a *lower* level spell affect so they can multi cast more often. It's the first time in a long time I thought, "That's the way to do it!" <<

Thank you. It's not just the multi-casting, though, it's more the penetration I'm after. I was advised at character creation to spend my spell levels on a few high-level formulaic spells, leaving the low-level stuff for spontaneous, and have been regretting taking that advice ever since. With demons, a quasi-hermetic diabolist in charge of them (it now appears), and some dodgy members of my own covenant, I very much feel that I want a lot of easy penetrative spells to blast through parma and give me a chance to roll out the big guns.

I'm looking at things like Spasms of the Uncontrolled Hand, Curse of the Stuttering Tongue, Confusion of the Numbed Mind, Call to Slumber - all at diameter duration: knock out their spellcasting then get the grog to stick them. Why make life complicated?

Cheers,

Pell.R.

>>> Hey, I just noticed we both have user names of Arthurian knights! Mine was evil though. :-D

A king, sir, a king! And the embodiment of all that was noble (Malory), if somewhat incompetent (TH White) ;-)

>>> You might also want some Rego Vim spells for defense

I have a colleague working on that. Not that I trust his spells: he has a habit of experimenting in the lab...

>>> Don't overlook the potential of charged items... you can probably scrape together a Lab Total of 50...

/coughs More like 36: we're pretty new mages. I was thinking along those lines, though: a wand with DEO 20 and penetration 40 is a total of 40, and I can make one in one season then eight more the next. Or I could knock it down to penetration 20 and make more of them, but I'm not so worried about low-level demons while the Aegis is up, it's the big guys I want to hit hard. And once they've been hit once, the little spells should be enough to finish them off. Two seasons should equip the whole covenant with enough heavy weaponry to go hunting some nasties :-)

Cheers,

Pell.R.

"You can cast several copies of a single mastered spell so that it affects more people, objects or areas (as applicable) than normal. A single target may also be affected more than once. You may cast a number of copies of the spell equal to or less than your mastery score."

The last scentence means that the number of copies of the spell you cast equals (or can be less than) your score.

With a score of 1 you can cast 1 copy. That is the original spell and 1 copy. So 2 versions of the spell.

Trust me, english is my native language. Copies is a specific word impling object that is the same as original...so if you can cast 1 copy you end up with 2 spells. As in I will make a copy of the document, after which the copy process results in 2 documents...the original and the (one) copy. That is the key point...when one makes a single copy you have 2 identical objects. When you make 2 copies you have 3 objects, etc.

"Speaking as one who deals with ambiguously-drafted legislation as my day job, I can see that you both have a point. Were I arguing this out with HM Inspector of Taxes, I could happily argue either side of the question."

If you did so I think you might find yourself out of a job. It is not in the slightest bit ambiguous. If I ask you to make a copy of a letter how many letters will you have in your hand at the end of running the original through the copy machine? The answer is 2. So the ability to make a (one) copy results in two objects.

I don't want to insult anyone here but this is not ambigous, it is a clearly worded scentence and it means that you cast a copy of the spell per spell masterly level in addition to the original. I suspect the fact that it just dawned on me that "in addition to the original" is implied, or assumed or commonly understood may be where the problem lies but regardless the scentence is not subject to other interpretations unless you are arguing solely for the point of arguing or perhaps are Abrahamray in disguise...

"Now how many copies of the Times can you get every day for the price of one, if your Times customer rating level is 1? One, right? Would you sue the Times now?"

The problem here is between the use of "a copy" meaning "one of many" in which the above is correct and the use of the phrase "making a copy" or "producing a copy" which is different.

When you have or buy a copy of something mass produced you have one object. When you make a copy as I have said before you have 2 objects. How do you differentiate between which form is being refered to is in the context of the sentence: the ability to make a copy, produce a copy or create a copy ALWAYS implies plus the original.

Make a copy of this letter. Copy this book. Produce a copy of that computer chip there.

This is different then...

Those are a cheep copy of good Italian shoes she is wearing. A copy of the times free with every coffee. I will be buying a copy of starwars today.

Now, it has been too long since I sat in an english class to explain this in terms of deconstructed grammer, but the mere fact it is hard for me to see how you can make the mistake without seriously thinking about it and still; even after seeing where the mistake comes from, not being able to say: "ok I can see his point of view" says this is something fairly deep seated in english. (yes I use complex compound sentences...that one is a good example of the german roots of the english language)

Sorry but you hit a "English has subtext" minefield here. I can't put it any other way. Chinese has intonation, Japanese has 3 alphabets, but English has subtext.

"I don't want to insult anyone here but this is not ambigous, it is a clearly worded scentence..."

I'm glad you agree with my interpretation, but I think that you are failing to achieve your aim. If this question were absolutely clear then we would not have had people holding contradictory opinions. You may consider that one opinion has no merit compared to the other, but to state that it cannot reasonably be held is an insult to the holder of that opinion - and indeed to me, given that I think it has some merit even though I consider it incorrect.

You have, in my opinion, insulted people - despite not wanting to. Verb. sap.

Cheers,

Pell.R.

The one person not holding this view is not a native english speaker. I know him personally and frankly doubt he will be offended by being told that he fell into a language trap. If he is we will deal with it personally.

It is an un-ambigous statement at the end of the day.

If I told you to go and make me a copy of a single page letter how many pieces of paper would you bring back to me?

If I told you to get me a copy of the times how many would you bring back to me?

If you have to think about the answers to those questions at all I am going to be greatly amazed. Yet in both cases I used the same words "a copy" yet you know the difference automatically. That is the subtext that Berenger doesn't get, its not his fault but it is the fact.

I agree that the wording is ambiguous, but when I first read it, it seemed plain to me that that you may only cast a spell a number of times equal to your score in the mastery ability. For example, when I burn four CDs, I will have made four copies of it, not four plus the original. If I copy a book twice, I have made two copies. If I write an article for Hermes' Portal (http://hermesportal.fr.st/), I receive one free copy of the magazine.

However, only being able to multicast the spell once seems a little weak to me, and I sympathize with the position that you should be able to do something different with the special ability when you first get it. So, for my game, I would treat it as if it said: "You may cast the spell a number of times equal to or less than your mastery score + 1."

IMO the ambiguity or lack thereof is entirely derived from the context, or lack thereof.

"If I told you to go and make me a copy of a single page letter how many pieces of paper would you bring back to me?"

Two. The context makes it unambiguous.

"If I told you to get me a copy of the times how many would you bring back to me?"

One. The context makes it unambiguous.

Let me try an example, though. If I said I need three copies of a single-page document, as it needs to go in several different files, how many pieces of paper would you bring back to me?

Cheers,

Pell.R.

//Chinese has intonation, Japanese has 3 alphabets, but English has subtext.//
Any language has subtext.

//When you have or buy a copy of something mass produced you have one object. When you make a copy as I have said before you have 2 objects. How do you differentiate between which form is being refered to is in the context of the sentence: the ability to make a copy, produce a copy or create a copy ALWAYS implies plus the original.//
Look again closely at our rule. Both a rule that says: "You can cast several copies of a single mastered spell, in addition to the original spell ..." and a rule that says: "You can cast several copies of a single mastered spell, after the same model and following the same specifications ..." make sense.
In the first wording, 'copy' refers clearly to an original spell also cast. In the second wording, 'copy' refers to a model instead, which is copied without being cast - like in the newspaper argument I made, where the original is not for sale alongside the newspaper copies.

How to distinguish between those two possible meanings of 'copy' here?

Pellinor takes an approach which is hard to refute in (http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=683.21) by: //Applying the normal rules of statutory construction (I'm applying my England and Wales Law score here, but my Tax specialisation probably doesn't apply), the word "copies" is the key, and leads to an ambiguity. We therefore have recourse to the purposive principle, and seek to discern the intention of the draftsman. Without Hansard to refer to, the only relevant bit seems to be the bit in the description of the ability which says "You can cast [a] mastered spell so that it affects more people, objects or areas (as applicable) than normal."//
But AFAICS he makes an assumption here, which I cannot disprove, though I clearly do not share it. His procedure is only adequate if he assumes that the author goofed and inadvertently left an obvious ambiguity about the meaning of 'copy' in the rule: "You can cast several copies of a single mastered spell ...".
David Chart has not given me any reason to assume him liable to such oversights. I would also not care for rule books full of them - so tend to assume until positive proof to the contrary that a given phrase does not contain one.
If you follow me and consider the author a sharp, non-redundant but capable writer (something in my experience rare in the US and Canada, but common in Britain) and his book worth reading, then the rule is really not ambiguous: it does not mention an 'original', hence it does not refer to one, hence no 'original' is cast. And then looking for circumstantial and inadvertently given evidence of intent like "more people, objects or areas (as applicable) than normal" is not needed - as again shown by my newspaper example.

See you,

Berengar

Regarding Spell Mastery and Multiple Casting.
I had a friend of mine (lector in English) read the paragraph detailing Multiple Casting and he concur with your point of view on this. The way the text is written clearly states that you may cast up to Mastery Score and that is the number of spells allowed. Not additional copies and an original.

The way I read the Spell Mastery rules is that you got one Spell Mastery Ability for a given spell (lets say Ball of Abysmal Flame) and for every level in your Spell Mastery score with that spell, you may select one of the special abilities.

So lets say I have a Spell Mastery score of 4 in Ball of Abysmal Flame. That would allow me to select four special abilities. I have selected: Fast Casting, Magic Resistance, Multiple Casting, and Penetration. Now my Spell Mastery score allows me to add 4 to the spell casting total with Ball of Abysmal Flame, reduce any botch dice with 4.

Fast Casting: More or less just allows me to cast a formulaic spell as fast casting, which is normally reserved for spontanous spells.

Magic Resistance: Doubles my Magic Resistance against Ball of Abysmal Flame and any similar spells or powers.

Multiple Casting: Allows me to cast 4 Ball of Abysmal Flame in the same round.

Penetration: Adds 4 to my Pentration Ability.

IMHO: Not bad for 50exp.

For ease of thought, consider this:

The original of any formulatic spell is in the head of the magus. Each casting he casts a single copy into the world. With multi-casting, one can make several copies at once...

>>> [Pellinor's] procedure is only adequate if he assumes that the author goofed and inadvertently left an obvious ambiguity about the meaning of 'copy' in the rule: "You can cast several copies of a single mastered spell ...".

>>> David Chart has not given me any reason to assume him liable to such oversights...

Perhaps it's the adversarial nature of tax work, but I shy very much away from what is effectively an ad hominem argument ("David Chart is a good writer, therefore this is good writing").

I could equally well say that if he meant that you could cast a number of examples of the spell equal to your mastery score he would have written "examples" rather than "copies". The fact that he used the latter is either significant or the result of sloppy writing.

I forget which judge it was that said it (and the exact wording), but there is a principle in the construction of UK law that "We are not seeking to determine what Parliament meant to say, but the meaning of what they actually said". That is, sloppy writing is still definitive.

In this case the book says "copies", and a copy is, by definition, a duplicate of something else. The question then is, what is the original? I agree that none is explicitly mentioned, but one must exist for the word to make sense.

If the original is the spell you are casting, then you cast Mastery Score + 1 examples of the spell (the "MS+1" hypothesis). If the original is the platonic form of the spell, then you cast Mastery Score examples (the "MS+0" hypothesis). I can see arguments that either of these could be true, based simply on the word "copies". Hence the ambiguity.

The external evidence we have is then that the description of "Multiple Casting" states that you can cast a spell to affect more targets if you have that ability. That would suggest that MS+1 is correct, though not conclusively. A related bit of evidence is that abilities normally grant you some bonus. Every other ability allows you to do something you otherwise couldn't, or to do it better; taking Multiple Casting as your first Mastery special ability only does so if MS+1 is correct.

I can see no external evidence to support MS+0, though I accept I could be missing it.

How do people reconcile the MS+0 principle with the external evidence cited above?

Cheers,

Pell.R.

Using your interpretation, let's say I have a mastery score of 1 in a spell, and I choose multiple casting. I get +1 to the casting total and roll one fewer botch die, and can cast the spell at one target.

If I choose fast casting instead, I get all those plus the ability to fast cast. That seems a much better way to spend 5xp.

Cheers,

Pell.R.

The problem with language is that it is a flexible form of communication so I am going to use math to explain the situation.

The rule states the following in mathematical terms: 1+n = (n+1) where n >= 1.
=
Berenger states the following: 0+n = n where n>=1.

The problems are:

1. The first is absolutely clear as when the word copy is used in the english language in conjuction with a verb implying creation there must first of all be an original and then you have the copies of it. Making a copy of data onto 4 CD roms results in 5 sets of the data...1 on HD and 4 on CD. Making a backup copy results in 2 sets of data 1 on the HD one on a hopefully more stable medium. Examples exist ad infinatum as this is a fact of the english language and cannot be escaped, evaded or argued about excepting you are just arguing cause you like to. When making n copies you end up with n+1 objects. When I gave my thesis to the copy people and said make 5 copies I got back a box with six thesis in it...the 5 copies I wanted and the original they need to a copy in the first place. The rule speaks of casting...casting is an act of creation and hence is covered by this version of usage.

2. Berenger is arguing from a point of view that is correct. Don't all have heart attacks this is infact the problem. In the context of having a copy, buying a copy or getting a copy (all actions occuring after production of said copy) then indeed n copies is n objects.

The real problem is of course when one reads Berengers arguement you are struck by the fact what the man appears to be arguing is that: 1+n = n where n >= 1 and well as most people will I hope agree that is not true. He believes he is arguing that 0+n = n (a true fact) but anyone reading his argument automatically sticks in the 1 for the 0 in the above and gets that he is trying to say: 1+n=n and starts to wonder things not particularily complimentary about him.

Why there are two usages for the same words "a copy" in the english language I do not know, it is obviously something learned knee high to a duck and then forgotten. It is not a function of grammer it is a function of usage.

But if you don't believe me then at the end of the day I feel my mission was accomplished, my friend (Berenger) was running at high speed for a cliff, I tripped him and told him the cliff was there. If he gets up, brushes himself off and runs over it well I did what I could do. You can view this as tripping him again and pointing out again that falling off a cliff is bad for your health.

If you care to believe that 1+1 = 1 that is not something I am going to correct at least not with a message on a news board. And that is what saying that the ability to make a copy does not result in two objects (the original and the copy) ends up meaning. I also suggest you leave off any ideas of working in the copy industy.

Spell Mastery 1 in multicasting allows you to make one copy of the spell. If you don't cast a spell you have no copy. If you do cast a spell you have both the original and the one copy. That is two spells. I confess to being baffled why this is considered ambiguous by anyone. But on the other hand proving one is innocent is an impossible task and that it seems is much like what is going on here.

This by the way illustrates why the language of physics is mathematics...although when discussing quantum mechanics it is possible to have electrons communicating faster than light with each other actually looking at the expressions removes this.

//How do people reconcile the MS+0 principle with the external evidence cited above?//

As mentioned a few posts above - by allowing for the original spell to remain in the head of the magus. After all, he isn't losing it is he?

//... but anyone reading his argument automatically sticks in the 1 for the 0 in the above and gets that he is trying to say: 1+n=n ...//

Oh boy, you do underestimate the people on this list! Let's take this offline and discuss it face to face some time, OK?

//In this case the book says "copies", and a copy is, by definition, a duplicate of something else. The question then is, what is the original? I agree that none is explicitly mentioned, but one must exist for the word to make sense.//
You may be essentially right, though I do not think that copy always means duplicate, and neither does Merriam-Webster (see http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=copy&x=22&y=16). But in the rule in question this is anyway not an issue. The question is only whether you cast something in addition to copies, or not.

//If the original is the spell you are casting, then you cast Mastery Score + 1 examples of the spell (the "MS+1" hypothesis). If the original is the platonic form of the spell, then you cast Mastery Score examples (the "MS+0" hypothesis). I can see arguments that either of these could be true, based simply on the word "copies". Hence the ambiguity.//
You cannot base a valid argument just on the word 'copies' - because that word alone, without its context, is ambiguous. I think we basically agree here, though.

//The external evidence we have is then that the description of "Multiple Casting" states that you can cast a spell to affect more targets if you have that ability. That would suggest that MS+1 is correct, though not conclusively.//
I agree with that. I just think, that we do not need this weak piece of evidence to understand the rule in question.

//A related bit of evidence is that abilities normally grant you some bonus. Every other ability allows you to do something you otherwise couldn't, or to do it better; taking Multiple Casting as your first Mastery special ability only does so if MS+1 is correct.//
That is also weak evidence, especially considering that Multicasting becoes very powerful quickly, as Nejira pointed already out in http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=683.32.

//Perhaps it's the adversarial nature of tax work, but I shy very much away from what is effectively an ad hominem argument ...//
Certainly an adversarial position with respect to an author leads to a very ... specific treatment of his work.
I do not see the basic and healthy assumption, that the author of a book knows his language and subject as well as his reader, as an ad hominem argument, though. This assumption may be disproved, of course (usually leading to the reader giving up on the book) - but an author may and will still rely on it when writing.

//I can see no external evidence to support MS+0, though I accept I could be missing it.//
You are not bound to do so, but *if* we assume that the author knew of the ambiguity of 'copies', and then wrote: "You can cast several copies of a single mastered spell ..." without referring to an original, then this cannot mean that in addition an original is cast. This overrides all weak evidence above.

//I could equally well say that if he meant that you could cast a number of examples of the spell equal to your mastery score he would have written "examples" rather than "copies".//
Could you? Does "You can cast several examples of a single mastered spell ..." really sound like good English to you?

Kind regards,

Berengar

//How do people reconcile the MS+0 principle with the external evidence cited above?//

>> As mentioned a few posts above - by allowing for the original spell to remain in the head of the magus. After all, he isn't losing it is he?

Fair enough in the multi-casting context, taken in isolation. But take this back to the simple case: if you have no spell mastery at all, and you want a target to be affected by a single spell effect, do you say:

a) "I am going to cast a spell at him"; or

b) "I am going to cast a copy of a spell at him"?

By your argument, (b) is correct, as (a) would mean you no longer had the spell in your head. Have you ever heard anyone say (b), though?

This all sounds a bit pedantic(!), but if normal usage does not refer to spells as copies then to do so is not normal usage, and one should therefore enquire as to why we have this abnormal usage.

Cheers,

Pell.R.

I accept that the external evidence I cite is weak, but I think that is a root cause of the problem: if it were strong, we wouldn't be having this discussion :-) I am rather against the idea of dismissing it simply because it is weak, without coming up with counter-evidence, though.

>>> I do not see the basic and healthy assumption, that the author of a book knows his language and subject as well as his reader, as an ad hominem argument, though

I think it is essentially ad hominem, though unusual in that ad hominem statements are normally attacks on the author rather than defences of him. The logical rigour of "The writer is good, therefore he does not introduce ambiguities, therefore this is not ambiguous, therefore of the two possible interpretations this one is correct" is not entirely clear to me, though ;-)

>>> ...*if* we assume that the author knew of the ambiguity of 'copies', and then wrote: "You can cast several copies of a single mastered spell ..." without referring to an original, then this cannot mean that in addition an original is cast.

But that is an unwarranted assumption, and IMO almost unwarrantable: you are suggesting that a good writer deliberately introduced an ambiguity, leaving the resolution of it to be determined by reference to an omission on his part. It appears to me that better assumption is that he was unaware of the ambiguity. I know I accidentally leave them in my own writing very frequently: I know what I mean to say, I say something consistent with my meaning, and miss the fact that it potentially has another meaning.

>>> Does "You can cast several examples of a single mastered spell ..." really sound like good English to you?

Yes, reasonably good, though perhaps this is because I am used to formal writing. It is certainly better than an ambiguity :-) I might recast the sentence: "You can cast a single mastered spell several times simultaneously, once for each point of Mastery Score...".

Cheers,

Pell.R.

Has anyone actually got round to asking David Chart about this Mastery Issue?

Certainly this argument (being the full half-hour) has been fun , but i dont expect any agreement until an Official Ruling is given.

//The logical rigour of "The writer is good, therefore he does not introduce ambiguities, therefore this is not ambiguous, therefore of the two possible interpretations this one is correct" is not entirely clear to me, though ;-)//
That is because it is a straw man - and leniency for a twice repeated strawman is off now. ;-)
To argue your interpretation and bring in your evidence, on whose weakness we both agree, you must first assume that the author goofed and was not aware of the different possible meanings of the word 'copy'. Don't you think that - to avoid any odor of an ad hominem argument - you should first produce at least a little evidence for this assumption?

//But that is an unwarranted assumption, and IMO almost unwarrantable: you are suggesting that a good writer deliberately introduced an ambiguity, ...//
No. I suggest that the author *knows* of the ambiguity of the word 'copy'. And that he assumes a reader who knows so, too. After all, the different uses of the word in question are clearly indicated in Merriam-Webster. (BTW, if using words with several different meanings is "deliberately introducing an ambiguity", then you have very few words left to write without introducing one.)
'Copy' is the right word to denote several spells derived from a single casting action and identical but for their targets. So David Chart uses it, and his decision to omit any reference to an original contains the statement that no original is cast.
(Imagine that a forensic expert's report from a crime site does not list any weapons or potential weapons found: Would you phone him to ask whether he forgot to mention them? Or would you conclude that none were found?)

//I am rather against the idea of dismissing it simply because it is weak, without coming up with counter-evidence, though.//
Isn't the reasoning above counter-evidence - provided you don't consider the author an ignorant of the English language?

//I might recast the sentence: "You can cast a single mastered spell several times simultaneously, once for each point of Mastery Score...".//
That is even worse than using 'example', because now you introduced several casting actions performed simultaneously.
So you have not only opened the can of worms of how far the spells cast simultaneously can differ - which is kept tightly closed by the use of the word 'copies' - but also poked a big hole into the simple combat system from p.171f.
Writing rules isn't all that simple.

Kind regards,

Berengar

I'm getting very confused here.

On the one hand, you seem to be saying that the use of "copies" is *not* ambiguous: in post 31, for example, you say "...the rule is really not ambiguous: it does not mention an 'original', hence it does not refer to one".

On the other, you're saying that it *is* ambiguous: "I suggest that the author *knows* of the ambiguity of the word 'copy" (post 43)

However, when we look at the actual facts of the case we find two schools of thought: some people think it implies an original, some do not. What this suggests very strongly to me is that it *is* ambiguous, where "ambiguous" means admitting of two possible interpretations.

What you seem to claim is that those who read an original in are simply wrong, but the only evidence you have presented to support that position is the statement that "copies" dos not require an original to be cast. I really do not see how that is any more justified than a plain statement that "copies" *does* require an original to be cast.

I quote: "'Copy' is the right word to denote several spells derived from a single casting action and identical but for their targets. So David Chart uses it, and his decision to omit any reference to an original contains the statement that no original is cast."

I respond: "'Copy' is the right word to denote several spells derived from a single casting action which are in addition to an original and identical to it but for their targets. So David Chart uses it, and his decision to omit any reference to an original is because that reference is implicit in the word 'copy'."

We have two absolute statements there. Which is correct? I don't know, but you simply telling me that the first is clearly correct, full stop, doesn't really help.

You will note that of the definitions in your Merriam-Webster link the first two require the existence of an original and the third is an archaic use meaning the original. I assume that the author uses modern English and so the last can be ignored; where then is the original in your interpretation of "copy"? If it is in the mind of the magus, do you then refer to every spell cast as a copy of a spell, even where multi-casting is not in point?

You still have not countered the weak external evidence. Why should an ability which is explicitly stated to allow the casting of a spell to affect more than one target not do so (at mastery score of 1)?

Final point, perhaps a little petty:

>>> That is even worse than using 'example', because now you introduced several casting actions performed simultaneously.
So you have not only opened the can of worms of how far the spells cast simultaneously can differ - which is kept tightly closed by the use of the word 'copies' - but also poked a big hole into the simple combat system from p.171f.
Writing rules isn't all that simple. <<<

That is why I am not a writer of rules ;-), and why I have people review my work before I finalise it. Thank you for the comment; I would revise the wording to "You can cast a single mastered spell several times simultaneously as a single action, once for each point of Mastery Score...", though I imagine that could also be improved.

Cheers,

Pell.R.

What is bad about a Mastered Spell Special Ability, which is only usable at a higher level of Mastery?
I really would like to see a few.

Regard,
adumbratus

//On the one hand, you seem to be saying that the use of "copies" is *not* ambiguous: in post 31, for example, you say "...the rule is really not ambiguous: it does not mention an 'original', hence it does not refer to one".

On the other, you're saying that it *is* ambiguous: "I suggest that the author *knows* of the ambiguity of the word 'copy" (post 43)//

The reason for your confusion is, that you do not attempt to read precisely.
The *word* 'copy', like most words, has several meanings: hence is an ambiguous word. So is 'rule', 'original', 'reason' and a lot of other words which we use here.
The *rule* "You can cast several copies of a single mastered spell ..." is really not ambiguous, unless you first posit an incompetent author.

//You will note that of the definitions in your Merriam-Webster link the first two require the existence of an original and the third is an archaic use meaning the original. I assume that the author uses modern English and so the last can be ignored; where then is the original in your interpretation of "copy"?//
The first two entries are (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=copy&x=22&y=16):
"(1) : an imitation, transcript, or reproduction of an original work (as a letter, a painting, a table, or a dress)
(2) : one of a series of especially mechanical reproductions of an original impression; also : an individual example of such a reproduction"
So the 'original' in case (1) is of the same kind as the 'copy' (and if the copy case (1) is a spell, then so is its 'original'), while in case (2) it is of a quite different kind (so if the copy case (2) is a spell, then its 'original' can be a concept, plan, platonic idea, casting action or other things - which are not cast).

//If it is in the mind of the magus, do you then refer to every spell cast as a copy of a spell, even where multi-casting is not in point?//
Why should I, or anybody else? The point in using 'copy' to denote spells resulting from one multicast is to clearly stress their common origin and their strict similarity.

Ok, lets try again with the main issue. David Chart writes: "You can cast several copies of a single mastered spell ..." without mentioning an original also being cast.

If you claim that he omitted this because it were self-understood that an original was cast, too, you indeed have said that he goofed and was *not* aware of case (2).

A reader aware of both cases (1) and (2) - like us two - looks for an indication which case of 'copy' is meant. The reader does rely for this on a very simple convention - the small Occam razor: if a descriptive text claiming to be exhaustive (like an RPG rulebook) does not mention something of obvious importance to the description, which a priori could be either present or not, then the text implicite states that it is not present.
(So when the datasheet of a PC does not mention a firewire port, it implies that this PC has no firewire port. And so on.)

So the reader concludes that no original is cast, because no original cast is mentioned. And from this the reader concludes, that the author intended a case (2) copy. OK?

//I would revise the wording to "You can cast a single mastered spell several times simultaneously as a single action, once for each point of Mastery Score...", though I imagine that could also be improved.//
It can, because it still keeps the problem open, how far these spells can differ.
You could - *if* from a philosophical, math or computer science background - write very precisely "You can cast several instances of a single mastered spell ...". Just that people without such background are used to quite different - mostly legal - meanings of 'instance' and might get confused.

Kind regards,

Berengar

>>>> The *rule* "You can cast several copies of a single mastered spell ..." is really not ambiguous, unless you first posit an incompetent author.

But it *is* ambiguous: people are interpreting it differently. That does not happen with an unambiguous sentence, by definition.

Why is your interpretation correct? Your argument is simply that David Chart is not incompetent. From this you deduce that he has not written ambiguously, and therefore that no interpretation of the rule is possible other than the one you came up with on your first reading.

I am quite prepared to believe you are correct, but so far you have given me nothing to support your argument. Even if your argument contained no errors you have not shown how it supports your position It supports the opposite position equally well: David Chart has written unambiguously, and therefore the copies are of an original.

I very much suspect that you are simply defending your reading without having thought through whether or not it is correct.

Cheers,

Pell.R.

//But it *is* ambiguous: people are interpreting it differently. That does not happen with an unambiguous sentence, by definition.//
No.
Just that people do understand a phrase differently doesn't make it ambiguous. People can also be wrong in interpreting a phrase.

//Why is your interpretation correct? Your argument is simply that David Chart is not incompetent.//
No.
My argument is contained in (http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=683.46).
Short summary:
(A) The word 'copy' for spells can be used in two different ways. Only one of both ways to use 'copy' implies that an 'original' spell has also to be cast.
(B) The reader can find the right meaning of the word 'copy' by applying a simple, generally used convention for the meaning of omissions.
(C) The only way to refute (A) and (B) is proving that David Chart was not aware of the two possible meanings of 'copy'.
I reckon (C) will be hard for you to accomplish.

//I very much suspect that you are simply defending your reading without having thought through whether or not it is correct.//
From your quick response I am lead to suspect that you haven't even thoroughly read my last post. Certainly you haven't understood it. I suggest that you go back to it, give it another try and apply some more time to it.

Kind regards,

Berengar

//Fair enough in the multi-casting context, taken in isolation. But take this back to the simple case: if you have no spell mastery at all, and you want a target to be affected by a single spell effect, do you say:

a) "I am going to cast a spell at him"; or

b) "I am going to cast a copy of a spell at him"?

By your argument, (b) is correct, as (a) would mean you no longer had the spell in your head. Have you ever heard anyone say (b), though?

This all sounds a bit pedantic(!), but if normal usage does not refer to spells as copies then to do so is not normal usage, and one should therefore enquire as to why we have this abnormal usage.//

Personally I'd refer to multicasting as casting several spells at him... The only reason you need to consider one as the original and other as copies is this argument... Othervise this would all be a moot point...

>>> Just that people do understand a phrase differently doesn't make it ambiguous. People can also be wrong in interpreting a phrase.

You are making a very strong statement here. Several people on this forum interpret the phrase in a way you consider incorrect, as do all the people I have mentioned this question to off-line (including my SG, by the way: I have no vested interest here). In all off-line cases the people were baffled that you could interpret the phrase the way you do, given the "Multi-casting allows you to affect more than one target" rule. By my anecdotal evidence, if anyone is wrong in interpreting the phrase it is you - although I do not propose to argue from anecdote.

I do think that you have a valid interpretation, if the external evidence is ignored.

One form of your argument in post 46 was:

"The *rule* "You can cast several copies of a single mastered spell ..." is really not ambiguous, unless you first posit an incompetent author."

This suffers both from begging the question (which you pretty much acknowledge) and being an argument ad hominem. Do I need to expound on why these are not good bases for arguing?

You restated your argument in your last post:

>>> (A) The word 'copy' for spells can be used in two different ways. Only one of both ways to use 'copy' implies that an 'original' spell has also to be cast.

I agree with this premise. I personally find that the reading which suggests an original is more natural; you do not. I suspect that this is the root of our disagreement.

>>> (B) The reader can find the right meaning of the word 'copy' by applying a simple, generally used convention for the meaning of omissions.

There are many conventions relating to omissions. One is that the item omitted does not exist; another is that its existence is implicit and therefore need not be restated; yet another is that its existence is blindingly obvious and the omission draws attention to it. I think the second applies in this case; you think the first applies. This is the same point as (A), and I agree with this too.

>>> (C) The only way to refute (A) and (B) is proving that David Chart was not aware of the two possible meanings of 'copy'.

(A) and (B) appear to be premises, rather than conclusions. I agree that they are relevant premises and so would not seek to refute them even if it were possible to treat them as conclusions. Your conclusion is not actually stated, but is only implicit: "the right way" that the reader can find is your way and none other. The refutation of this is as stated above: your conclusion relies on David Chart's presumed infallibility's trumping the observed fact that people read his sentence in different ways.

I think the difference between us is that you apparently see that your initial interpretation of the sentence makes grammatical sense, and conclude that it is correct. If it is correct, other interpretations must logically be incorrect, as David Chart does not write ambiguities. You do not need to examine them: as you already have the correct answer, to do so would be otiose.

I, on the other hand, consider that both interpretations make grammatical sense and that either may therefore be correct. I therefore seek other evidence to choose between them, rather than seeking to prove one could not be reached by a reasonably competent reader.

I am not seeking to show that your interpretation is impossible, simply that it is not supported by external evidence. My argument primarily rests on my contention that my interpretation is a possible reading of the sentence, and secondly that it fits the external evidence satisfactorily. So far as I can tell, your refutation of my argument is that

a) you already have your own interpretation of the sentence;
b) David Chart does not write ambiguities; and therefore
c) my interpretation cannot be valid

Do you really not see that I could apply this argument to refute your argument, and do not do so because I consider it ad hominem, begging the question, and thus fatally flawed? David Chart *did* write an ambiguity: there exists a sentence that he wrote which is interpreted two ways by competent readers. If that is not him writing an ambiguity I am a monkey's uncle (on recalling my nephew, I may regret saying that :-) )

My last response, by the way, was not merely quickly dashed off. I suspect I must have read your post almost immediately after you made it, by some coincidence. I believe I understand your post, but what I understand from it is that you are in error, and I am willing to believe that that was not what you intended when writing it.

Regards,

Pell.R.

Edited 8/8/2005 7:56 am ET by PELLINOR

//>>> (A) The word 'copy' for spells can be used in two different ways. Only one of both ways to use 'copy' implies that an 'original' spell has also to be cast.

I agree with this premise. I personally find that the reading which suggests an original is more natural; you do not. I suspect that this is the root of our disagreement.//

So on (A) we both agree. I of course do accept your personal feeling about which reading appears natural to you here, too. We just must not let that influence overly our reading.

//>>> (B) The reader can find the right meaning of the word 'copy' by applying a simple, generally used convention for the meaning of omissions.

There are many conventions relating to omissions. One is that the item omitted does not exist; another is that its existence is implicit and therefore need not be restated; yet another is that its existence is blindingly obvious and the omission draws attention to it. I think the second applies in this case; you think the first applies. This is the same point as (A), and I agree with this too.//

We have agreement on (A), so the omission which we are discussing (of an 'original' spell being cast or not) is an omission in a normative description about something, which
* could well be either present or not,
* and whose presence or not must be resolved for the description or norm to be understandable and of service.

So the 'small Occam razor' convention clearly applies: this omission means that the omitted thing is not present. (I wonder why you should not have learned this - latest - during your first year studying law at university.)

//yet another is that its existence is blindingly obvious and the omission draws attention to it.//:
This is indeed a literary figure, but it requires that the omitted fact *is* obvious - and we both, agreeing to (A), see that this is not the case.

//another is that its existence is implicit and therefore need not be restated;//:
This reasoning *only* works, if the non-obvious fact omitted is stated elsewhere in this text or in a referenced other text - as you also admit by using //restated//.
Since our text does not refer to other texts in this matter, and nowhere contains a statement, that an original is cast in addition, this reasoning does not apply.
(If you really wished to make this a convention - and live by it - also for omissions which are not resolved elsewhere, you would have to make yourself miserable by reading omissions in a technical description as indications that the omitted features are present, omissions in a list of criminal offenses as an indication that the omitted acts constitute also crimes, and every omission in your tax declaration as an admission that you had income of the omitted type.)

//your conclusion relies on David Chart's presumed infallibility's trumping the observed fact that people read his sentence in different ways.//
No. It just relies on David Chart sticking to Merriam-Webster and standard writing conventions.
That people nevertheless read him in different ways is unavoidable: there *is* no text which cannot be misunderstood, and this one at least requires some routine to read.

Sir Garlon, would you perhaps post a Redcap-FAQ entry on the issue some time, to spare the readers Pellinor refers to further headaches?

Kind regards,

Berengar

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lichtenberg (Sudelbuecher D 396): "Wenn ein Kopf und ein Buch zusammenstoßen und es klingt hohl, ist das allemal im Buch?"

Oh, dear.

So my interpretation is not a valid one, though it is independently arrived at by several competent readers of English, because:

>>> the 'small Occam razor' convention clearly applies: this omission means that the omitted thing is not present. (I wonder why you should not have learned this - latest - during your first year studying law at university.)

This appears to be the nub of your argument.

Incidentally, I suffer from not having studied Law at university: I merely have an MA in Philosophy, specialising in linguistics, plus practical experience in tax law. My studies did not include your argument, though I would have expected them to if it had merit.

In my understanding, Occam's Razor does not declare that entities may not be multiplied, it merely suggests that an hypothesis which does not do so is, ceteris paribus, to be preferred.

It is a rule of thumb to be taken into account when weighing up competing hypotheses, rather than a cast-iron law of language that my tutors unaccountably omitted to mention.

That being so, to rely on it as heavily as you do is not appropriate. It does not clearly apply; even if it did, it would not rule out other interpretations. Your argument therefore fails: you have not shown that my interpretation is inappropriate.

I say yet again: you may actually have the interpretation that the author intended. However, though you may have true belief, you do not (IMO) have justification for that true belief.

If an answer is to be put into the FAQ, presumably it will be the answer which has been offered most frequently: you may cast the spell MS+1 times in a single action, rolling separately for each. I should like to see a caveat that this may not be the author's intention, however.

Regards,

Pell.R.

PS I shall be away for the best part of a week, unfortunately, and am unlikely to be able to respond until this time next week.

//Incidentally, I suffer from not having studied Law at university://
Then I misunderstood your pulling of rank as a law expert from http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=683.21. Sorry for that.

//In my understanding, Occam's Razor does not declare that entities may not be multiplied, it merely suggests that an hypothesis which does not do so is, ceteris paribus, to be preferred.//
Your understanding is roughly correct. The original wording of the old nominalist was: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate.", which later became: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.": 'entities' must not be multiplied *without necessity*. But that is the real Occam's razor.
The small Occam's razor relies on the real one being - usually intuitively - employed by the reader, and thus allows a writer to make statements by omission, which can greatly contribute to the economy of a text, be it handbook, datasheet, rule book or law.
Of course that writer need not expect that then the rest of his work is passed through a sieve, to find minimal traces of arguments that he meant differently.

//you may actually have the interpretation that the author intended.//
I fear I have to be content with this statement of yours, since you argue the meaning of a book from the hypothesis that the author is liable to goofs, and I see no way to make you change that position.
But while an adversarial analysis of a well understood text can be very fruitful, provided the position from which it is performed is precisely given, an a priori adversarial attempt to first understand a text is doomed to result in arbitrary distortion: everything in the text can then be either goof or not, leaving you with no internal criterion to determine what really is.
"To understand a text, try to minimize the serious goofs you have to assume in it." is indeed another good use of Occam's razor.

//If an answer is to be put into the FAQ, presumably it will be the answer which has been offered most frequently://
Ahem - no.
First take a good look at http://redcap.org/FAQ/FAQ2.html#official: the purpose of the FAQ is to help people read the rules, not to resolve rules discussions. That understood, if David Chart has made a clarification, you can find it there sooner or later. A voting process is not provided.

Kind regards,

Berengar

Catching up on the thread here, I would have to agree with the view of Spell Mastery that you cast it a number of additional times equal to your Mastery level (copies of the original, first spell).

The wording is ambiguous, given that multiple meanings can be read into it. To look back at one of your earlier arguments:

"As I already tried to explain above, the meaning of the second use of 'copies' in this paragraph is defined by the first use of it. And the first use does not distinguish between 'original' spell and 'additional' copies. Otherwise it would have been written "You can cast *additional* copies of a single mastered spell ..." or such. So the second use of 'copies' also does not make this distinction, and the number of copies includes the original spell as well. "

Given your assumption of good writing, the use of copies would actually denote the opposite of what you suggest. It would be more concise to have written "You can cast a single mastered spell a number of times equal to your mastery level." without using the word copy unless the use of the word copies indicates that there is also an original spell being cast. Using your argument that David Chart is a good writer, we must consider what he put in his sentences as well as what might have been left out. By Occam's Razor, he would not have introduced the extra verbiage of 'copies' unless there were an original spell also being cast, when it would have been simpler to have left the verbiage out.

Getting back to the original point of the thread (smiting demons, not arguing on the meaning of the Spell Mastery Rules), Pellinor originally asked:

"The obvious first step is to learn Demon's Eternal Oblivion, which leads to the first question: am I right in thinking that the more powerful the demon, the lower level you want to know this spell at, in order to get the penetration? Given a casting score of say 15 plus stress die, I'd only use a level 10 version on a might 10 demon, and level 5 or less on a more powerful one."

That's correct, the lower level of the spell allows for greater penetration. The balancing factor of this is that the lower the level of the spell, the more times it needs to be cast against higher might demons. Unless multicasting (whether n or n+1 times), this will take extra time which the demon will undoubtedly take advantage of.

Actually, going through the wording of the basic Perdo Vim category, there is a discontinuity at the extremely low levels for the spell (below level 5). The text for Perdo Vim states that you decrease the demon's might by level + 10, not level +2 magnitudes. That would mean taking a level 1 as a base, adding +2 magnitudes for voice, a level 3 version of the spell at range touch would decrease the demon's might by 11, not by 3 as the spell itself says. This is important not just for the spell, but for cases such as Mythic Blood where someone might have the blood of a mighty demonslayer and try to take this at a low level but high penetration. I tend to believe that they meant to say +2 magnitudes instead of +10 levels. I was curious though whether this had been looked at since there is the difference between the spell itself and the description of the fundamental principles from which the spell was derived.

// The obvious first step is to learn Demon's Eternal Oblivion

The other obvious step is to bone up on Infernal Lore, so that you can lean how to detect the devils. They are often subtle and tend not to stand up and identify themselves, and of course they can't be detected by magic unless they choose to be. There is therefore a serious risk of wasting your charged staff on some innocent bystander while the demon gets on with its diabolical business undetected.

Incidentally, red coral is more effective than diamond (but probably even harder to get hold of if you're not near the Mediterranean).

>>> I misunderstood your pulling of rank as a law expert...

I'd forgotten about that. I was not intending to pull rank, I was merely being lighthearted in explaining why I was taking a fairly formal approach to things.

>>> Your understanding is roughly correct. The original wording of the old nominalist was: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate.", which later became: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.": 'entities' must not be multiplied *without necessity*. But that is the real Occam's razor.

Thank you. Can you also confirm that one must make a hole at both ends of the shell before sucking out the yolk and the white?

>>> ...you argue the meaning of a book from the hypothesis that the author is liable to goofs, and I see no way to make you change that position.

But I'm not arguing that he goofed, particularly, except in so far as he did so by writing an ambiguous sentence. Now I consider this ambiguity a fact: I genuinely read the sentence one way, and you genuinely interpret it another. Where we differ is in the response to this ambiguity. I work from its existence to try to resolve which of the two meanings was intended; you deny its existence, and therefore attempt to explain why an apparent ambiguity is actually a clear statement. But can you really deny that a sentence is ambiguous if so many people read it in two different ways?

I'm not saying "he might have made a mistake, therefore I can ignore the written word and replace it with my preferred text". I am saying "he has introduced an ambiguity; I wonder which interpretation he meant?" There is a profound difference.

You, on the other hand, seem to be saying "he cannot have made a mistake, therefore any apparent ambiguity comes from sloppy reading practices".

But if you want to argue that the author of the 5th edition rulebook is immune to goofs, how do you explain the existence of the official errata? Or do you consider them exhaustive?

>>> ...the purpose of the FAQ is to help people read the rules, not to resolve rules discussions.

But it was you who suggested the FAQ entry. I merely suggest that if this discussion is regarded as being in any way a community consensus, the consensus does not appear to be that you are correct. A hitherto silent majority may correct me, however.

Regards,

Pell.R.

>>> The other obvious step is to bone up on Infernal Lore, so that you can lean how to detect the devils.

Is this not futile, in that the deceptions of demons cannot be seen through by Hermetic means, or indeed any means short of Divine?

Cheers,

Pell.R.

//But I'm not arguing that he goofed, particularly, except in so far as he did so by writing an ambiguous sentence. ... You, on the other hand, seem to be saying "he cannot have made a mistake, therefore ...//
No. I just say, that there is no motivation to assume him having made an ambiguous statement here. Do you assume an ambiguity in a PC datasheet not listing a firewire port, or in a tax declaration not listing income from inheritance? I hope you don't!
So why do you assume an ambiguity in his case, when you just can read his text as a sharp, non-redundant but precise statement instead?

//But it was you who suggested the FAQ entry. I merely suggest that if this discussion is regarded as being in any way a community consensus, the consensus does not appear to be that you are correct. A hitherto silent majority may correct me, however.//
If somebody is going to 'correct you' on the FAQ, it will be the the author.

Kind regards,

Berengar

//It would be more concise to have written "You can cast a single mastered spell a number of times equal to your mastery level." without using the word copy unless the use of the word copies indicates that there is also an original spell being cast.//
I thought I had addressed that already in http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=683.43 and http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=683.46.

Kind regards,

Berengar

>>> I just say, that there is no motivation to assume him having made an ambiguous statement here.

Other than the sentence being interpreted in two inconsistent ways by different readers, that is?

My initial reading of the sentence was that there is an original spell as well as the copies. Several other people red it the same way. You, however, see no need for an original. Unless some people are simply being contrary, this is a classic case of an ambiguous sentence. I am not assuming an ambiguity, I am finding one empirically.

I am not suggesting that David Chart *deliberately* wrote ambiguously, I just think that what he wrote ended up being ambiguous. I can see entirely how one could come by the wording actually used, whether one is encoding the meaning of MS+0 or MS+1. It is unfortunate that whichever meaning he intended his choice of words is also consistent with the other.

Cheers,

Pell.R.

// Is this not futile, in that the deceptions of demons cannot be seen through by Hermetic means, or indeed any means short of Divine?

Not at all. Just because you can't do something by magic doesn't mean you can't do it. Mundane investigation works perfectly well at uncovering demonic lies, some Faerie powers probably can, and other Infernal effects possibly can (see p186 of 5th ed).

Depending on the storyguide's wishes, there may be scholarship and folklore concerning demonic foibles, and it may be accurate. For example, maybe demons tend to turn anticlockwise when given the choice, so you could try walking up behind someone and tapping then on the right shoulder. Even if there aren't any useful tests like that, the characters still should be able to recognise oppression when they see it, for example.

I like your idea a lot. A reoccuring problem I read about is that demons are deceptive and Hermetic magic can't detect demons, so magi have no chance at protecting themselves from a demons deceptions.

In a few short words you've established that numerous other sources exist to 'detect' demons. One could argue such things are untrue, such as witch detection methods (if she floats-she's a witch), yet this is Ars Magica and maybe these methods are true.

It's an interesting idea because we spend so much time playing wizards, many of us start seeing solutions only in the context of the Hermetic method. That is, Magi can't detect demons with magic, so demons can't be detected.

What's my point here? I suppose I just find your proposal a refreshing thought.

Now I'm trying to think of a list of 'natural' ways to detect demons as well as other circumstances where such lore could apply.

Thanks for the good idear!

Chuck

PS, anybody got a pin?

//>>> I just say, that there is no motivation to assume him having made an ambiguous statement here.

Other than the sentence being interpreted in two inconsistent ways by different readers, that is?//

Since you insist and bring this argument now - IIRC - the third time, I am led to accept the following as *your* definition of an ambiguous statement: a "sentence being interpreted in two inconsistent ways by different readers".
With *this* definition further discussion is not necessary, you are of course right, and the phrase in question on ArM5 p.87 is ambiguous.
As is any other phrase in any book read by a few thousand readers.

Kind regards,

Berengar

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lichtenberg (Sudelbuecher D 396): "Wenn ein Kopf und ein Buch zusammenstoßen und es klingt hohl, ist das allemal im Buch?"

But what do you object to in that definition? Are you proposing a prescriptive grammar of English, rather than a descriptive one? I had several tutors who would be interested to hear you support such a theory.

What would you prefer as a definition of ambiguity? That a sentence has two logically permissible interpretations? I would say that this is for practical purposes the same as my definition, as I consider that the test of whether an interpretation is permissible is that a competent reader could arrive at it. I am assuming that all the readers I have cited are competent, of course; you may dispute this on the basis that if they come to what you consider an absurd notion then they are not reasonably competent.

By coincidence, I was reading an article on a tax case today (1), which included a line I think apt here: "If you regard a situation as simple and well-established when everyone else thinks it's controversial, you are either far more intelligent than anyone else, or..." (sic)

>>> ...the phrase in question ... is ambiguous. As is any other phrase in any book read by a few thousand readers.

That is mere pettiness. Although supposing grammar to be descriptive rather than prescriptive does imply that meaning is relative to the reader, you would have to take the argument to a ridiculous extreme to support this. The fact that most statements are interpreted by readers as having the same material meaning is the mark of them reading the smae language - as I'm sure you know very well.

Unless perhaps you are speaking Rigellian (2), which happens to be identical to English save for this one idiosyncratic rule?

Cheers,

Pell.R.

(1) Taxation magazine, 4 August, p481: commenting on the 'Arctic Systems' issue

(2) Kodos, or possibly Kang, in The Simpsons

"//It would be more concise to have written "You can cast a single mastered spell a number of times equal to your mastery level." without using the word copy unless the use of the word copies indicates that there is also an original spell being cast.//
I thought I had addressed that already in http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=683.43 and http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=683.46."

No, you don't really address the issue I bring up there. In your posts you base your interpretation on the fact that the sentence states that you cast copies of the spells, but that there is no mention of the original in the description. From this you presumed that David Chart deliberately chose to not include the word original because all spells are copies. My contention is that he used the phrase 'cast copies of' spells rather than merely stating that 'the spell may cast a number of times equal to your mastery score'. By deliberately including the word copy (which you cite as an ambiguous word) rather than using the unambiguous statement of casting the spell a number of times equal to your mastery score, there must be a reason for the use of the word copy. In this case many (I would daresay most) people read it to mean that you cast a number of copies of spells in addition to the original.

Your argument is based upon the lack of one word ('original') in the statement for the rule, but ignores the reason for the inclusion of a word ('copy') when the rule could have been phrased more simply without it if your interpretation were correct.

//But what do you object to in that definition?//
So I conclude first that I guessed your definition right.

My problem with it was, that the definition is meaningless in the context of analyzing a text, because by it every relevant phrase is ambiguous. So I could not guess at it.

//>>> ...the phrase in question ... is ambiguous. As is any other phrase in any book read by a few thousand readers.

That is mere pettiness.//
No. It is trying to take you seriously.

//What would you prefer as a definition of ambiguity? That a sentence has two logically permissible interpretations?//
As a linguist, you know that 'logically permissible' requires a formal semantic framework into which to map a phrase first. While we are here clearly in the realm of pragmatics and - if you need something a little formal - Gricean CP.
//I would say that this is for practical purposes the same as my definition, as I consider that the test of whether an interpretation is permissible is that a competent reader could arrive at it.//
Well, there is a huge difference between your old definition:
Ambiguous statement: a sentence being interpreted in two inconsistent ways by different readers.
and this new one:
Ambiguous statement: a sentence being interpreted in two inconsistent ways by different *competent* readers.
Adding the so far undefined and in its context extremely ambiguous 'competent' makes of a definition meaningless for text analysis a definition useless for it.
Ask yourself: is a reader unaware of the two major meanings of 'copy' documented in Merriam-Webster not 'competent'? Or is he just at a big disadvantage understanding this particular phrase.

////What would you prefer as a definition of ambiguity?//
I make a big step towards you, replace 'competent' by something meaningful and suggest for purposes of this discussion the following definition.
Ambiguous statement: a statement which can be interpreted in two inconsistent ways by an intelligent reader fully knowing its context, the methodology of reading applicable to that context, and all the language constructs used in the statement. OK? (Yes, I know that 'intelligent' could need further elaboration, but believe that this is not important in our context.)

I have to stress that I was not expecting such a subject to come up with a linguist. I also hope that it needs no further discussion.

Kind regards,

Berengar

Well I'm not so much a linguist as a tax advisor who once studied linguistics - I am rather rusty and I wouldn't want to have to retake Finals without a year or two's start, but I retain the broad principles. I should point out (if it is not aleady obvious) that I tend towards the pragmatic in my thinking.

I would observe that the "huge difference" between the two definitions seems to consist of decribing the readers as competent; a description that I had left out as being redundant and entirely implicit in "readers". It is commonly treated as implicit when construing in law, though, which is perhaps why I left it unspoken.

You are heading very much towards a fairly strong relativism, stronger than I would like, in this and in saying that all phrases are ambiguous (reduction ad absurdum is a useful tool, but only really appropriate where an argument is put in a strong or absolute form). I believe there is such a stance taken by some literary scholars, though I forget the name of the school. I consider though that "good" writing is writing which minimises the chance and degree of misundertanding between author and reader, and on this basis using "copies" is bad writing: it leads to multiple possible understandings, one or more of which must be incorrect.

I am entirely happy to take your extended definition of ambiguous. I think where we differ is in interpreting "can be": I take an empirical view - the sentence *is* so taken; you, I think, would take a more rules-based view - the sentence *should be* so taken.

I agree that we've probably exhausted this discussion. I consider the sentence ambiguous, and do not care that it is only so if your rule is breached as I do not value your rule. We are unlikely to reach agreement on this point, but as our respective sagas appear to have internal agreement on the rule that does not seem to be a problem. A definitive statement by David Chart as to what he intended would be interesting, but bound to disappoint one or the other of us to an extent.

Cheers,

Pell.R.

>>>You are heading very much towards a fairly strong relativism, stronger than I would like, in this and in saying that all phrases are ambiguous (reduction ad absurdum is a useful tool, but only really appropriate where an argument is put in a strong or absolute form). I believe there is such a stance taken by some literary scholars, though I forget the name of the school.<<<

Are you thinking of deconstructionism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction

But perhaps Humpty Dumpty from 'Through the Looking Glass' is more apt?

http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."

Regards

- David W

//By deliberately including the word copy (which you cite as an ambiguous word) rather than using the unambiguous statement of casting the spell a number of times equal to your mastery score, there must be a reason for the use of the word copy. ... Your argument is based upon the lack of one word ('original') in the statement for the rule, but ignores the reason for the inclusion of a word ('copy') when the rule could have been phrased more simply without it if your interpretation were correct.//
I addressed exactly that, just as I told you in http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=683.60, in http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=683.43
by writing:
//'Copy' is the right word to denote several spells derived from a single casting action and identical but for their targets. So David Chart uses it, and his decision to omit any reference to an original contains the statement that no original is cast.//
and:
//So you have not only opened the can of worms of how far the spells cast simultaneously can differ - which is kept tightly closed by the use of the word 'copies' - but also poked a big hole into the simple combat system from p.171f.//
OK?

Yes, I know it's hard barging into a discussion which is going on for more than 60 posts.

Kind regards,

Berengar

The difference in our definitions is mainly in the fact that I tried to describe clearly which qualifications a reader needed before he could - by reading a phrase in two inconsistent ways - show that it was ambiguous.

//You are heading very much towards a fairly strong relativism, stronger than I would like, ...//
Not really. ;-)
//... in this and in saying that all phrases are ambiguous (reduction ad absurdum is a useful tool, but only really appropriate where an argument is put in a strong or absolute form).//
I only stated that your initial definition of an ambiguous statement led to such relativism. Being brought up on old-school philology, I do clearly not endorse it.

//I consider the sentence ambiguous, ...//
I can live with that. :-)
//... and do not care that it is only so if your rule is breached as I do not value your rule.//
I hope you still apply it, though. And - of course - it's not mine.

//I agree that we've probably exhausted this discussion.//
Yep!

Kind regards,

Berengar

//

//By deliberately including the word copy (which you cite as an ambiguous word) rather than using the unambiguous statement of casting the spell a number of times equal to your mastery score, there must be a reason for the use of the word copy. ... Your argument is based upon the lack of one word ('original') in the statement for the rule, but ignores the reason for the inclusion of a word ('copy') when the rule could have been phrased more simply without it if your interpretation were correct.//
I addressed exactly that, just as I told you in http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=683.60, in http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=683.43
by writing:
//'Copy' is the right word to denote several spells derived from a single casting action and identical but for their targets. So David Chart uses it, and his decision to omit any reference to an original contains the statement that no original is cast.//
and:
//So you have not only opened the can of worms of how far the spells cast simultaneously can differ - which is kept tightly closed by the use of the word 'copies' - but also poked a big hole into the simple combat system from p.171f.//
OK?

Yes, I know it's hard barging into a discussion which is going on for more than 60 posts.//

Well, you have some assumptions built in there, especially about poking big holes into the simple combat system, but let me try to rephrase things, going back to the original description of Multicasting and proceeding from there:

"Multiple Casting

You can cast several copies of a single mastered spell so that it affects more people, object, or areas (as applicable) than normal. A single target may also be affected more than once. You may cast a number of copies of the spell equal to or less than your Mastery Score.

Each spell must be rolled for separately. If any of the spells fail outright, you lose the fatigue and the spell fails, though others may still take effect successfully. <Snip>"

Now, we have gone from the specific sentence to include the beginning of the second paragraph. Your assertion on the specific use of copy and not changing the wording seems to be the insistence that you may cast only one spontaneous and one formulaic spell in one round. However, the text states clearly that you are casting multiple spells, since you are rolling for multiple spells. There's no need to use the word copy as a method of getting around the spellcasting rule by saying there's multiple effects for only one spell. There are multiple spells being cast.

Also of interest is that he states "each spell must be rolled for", "and if any of the spells fail" - not "each copy must be rolled for" or "and if any of the copies fail". This also tends to indicate that the copies being rolled for are copies of an individual spell. Now, why use the phrase 'several copies of a spell' and "a number of copies of the spell"? If your definition of copies were the correct definition, then it would have been far simpler and less ambiguous to have said "You may cast the spell a number of times equal to or less than your Mastery score" than it would to say "you may cast a number of copies of the spell equal to or less than your Mastery score". Since there's no reason to worry about the normal rule on how many spells can be cast in a round (since the definition of multiple casting establishes that multiple spells are cast), the word 'copy' is not being used (as you assert) to denote several spells derived from a single casting action and identical but for there targets. You are casting multiple spells involving multiple casting actions. If it were one casting action, then the action would be the same for all spells and one die roll would cover the effect for all copies of the spells. Since you are making multiple rolls, they are in fact multiple spells.

Now, if the word 'copy' is not to denote several spells derived from the same casting action, then what is 'copy' meant to mean here? Again, you do not have him using the sentence 'Each copy must be rolled for separately', but 'each spell must be rolled for separately', so this would imply that not all spells being rolled for are copies but that there is an original and several copies up to your Mastery score. You do not have the text saying "you can cast a spell so that it has multiple effects and will affect more people, objects or areas (as applicable) than normal". You do not have text saying "you may have the spell have an effect equal to or less than your Mastery score". There's still a reason for the word 'copy' when it would be easier and simpler to have structured the rule so that it doesn't use the word copy. If your definition of 'copy' were the definition that was meant to be used, then there was an unneccessary indroduction of ambiguity - this would have been easily avoided. If the word 'copy' were to use the first definition of 'copy' - a duplicate made of an original. This would mean that there is an original spell being cast, and copies of the spell equal to or less than the magus' Mastery score; 2 spells being cast at Mastery level 1.

Again, I'd say that you're straining to use a definition for the word 'copy' that, if correct, would preclude the use of that word in the ability description in the first place.

// Now I'm trying to think of a list of 'natural' ways to detect demons as well as other circumstances where such lore could apply.

I started making up superstitions about the nature and habits of demons, but then I decided it would be more authentic to look at malleusmaleficarum.org. The Malleus Maleficarum was written in the late 15th century, but it recounts a large number of much earlier folklore and stories. A few of them would be useful, e.g. supposedly angels, and therefore demons, don't need to defecate. And I found this passage particularly illuminating:

"When certain persons for the sake of temporal gain have devoted themselves entirely to the devil, it has often been found that, though they may be freed from the devil's power by true confession, yet they have been long and grievously tormented, especially in the night. And God allows this for their punishment. But a sign that they have been delivered is that, after confession, all the money in their purses or coffers vanishes."

I salute the perserverance of those selfless witch-hunters.

//Your assertion on the specific use of copy and not changing the wording seems to be the insistence that you may cast only one spontaneous and one formulaic spell in one round.//
No. See below.

//Well, you have some assumptions built in there, especially about poking big holes into the simple combat system, ...//
A hypothetical rule as in http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=683.41, implying multiple spell casting actions in a single round, breaks the combat system from ArM5 p.171ff, which relies on magi having only one action to cast spells or trigger a magic item at their place in the initiative order.

//There are multiple spells being cast.// Yes, in the same action. But there is an important restriction to this, which is contained in the word 'copy'. What is actually cast - see also http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=683.46 - are instances of the same spell, differing only by their target: you roll for each of them, but their effects are defined once. Without that restriction Multiple Casting would be very broken.
'Instance' is - *unless* a reader is from a philosophical, math or computer science background - a word even more liable to misunderstandings than 'copy', though.

//it would have been far simpler and less ambiguous to have said "You may cast the spell a number of times equal to or less than your Mastery score" than it would to say "you may cast a number of copies of the spell equal to or less than your Mastery score".//
Your hypothetical rule would - just like the better worded one from http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=683.44 - still imply, that the caster is allowed to define for each of these spells the effect anew, wouldn't it?

//Since there's no reason to worry about the normal rule on how many spells can be cast in a round (since the definition of multiple casting establishes that multiple spells are cast), ...//
now follows a non-sequitur:
//... the word 'copy' is not being used (as you assert) to denote several spells derived from a single casting action and identical but for there targets.//

//If it were one casting action, ...//
again a non-sequitur, because you unmotivatedly equate action with die roll:
//... then the action would be the same for all spells and one die roll would cover the effect for all copies of the spells.//

//Since you are making multiple rolls, they are in fact multiple spells.// Same non-sequitur again.

The rest of your post appears to be based on the above non-sequiturs, so I will not answer it in detail.

Kind regards,

Berengar

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lichtenberg (Sudelbuecher D 396): "Wenn ein Kopf und ein Buch zusammenstoßen und es klingt hohl, ist das allemal im Buch?"

// //Well, you have some assumptions built in there, especially about poking big holes into the simple combat system, ...//
A hypothetical rule as in http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=683.41, implying multiple spell casting actions in a single round, breaks the combat system from ArM5 p.171ff, which relies on magi having only one action to cast spells or trigger a magic item at their place in the initiative order. //

I base it off of the fact that you are casting multiple spells, as is stated in the second paragraph of the multiple casting description. The system does not break down because in this instance you are casting multiple spells, with the limitation that it is the same spell cast multiple times. This is inherent in the name of the mastery ability - Multiple Casting. You are casting multiples of the spell you have mastered.

//There are multiple spells being cast.// Yes, in the same action. But there is an important restriction to this, which is contained in the word 'copy'. What is actually cast - see also http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=683.46 - are instances of the same spell, differing only by their target: you roll for each of them, but their effects are defined once. Without that restriction Multiple Casting would be very broken.
'Instance' is - *unless* a reader is from a philosophical, math or computer science background - a word even more liable to misunderstandings than 'copy', though.//

If they were all one casting, all the copies should be exactly the same - requiring only one die roll to resolve the effect of each of the copies. As there are multiple die rolls, the effects are not quite the same - the power of each spell will vary somewhat, affecting the penetration of each spell. This would mean that they are several spells, and the casting of each one varies slightly.

//If it were one casting action, ...//
again a non-sequitur, because you unmotivatedly equate action with die roll://

No. I equate one die roll with one casting. You are saying that there is one casting action, and that this one action creates all the spell effects. I am saying that the effects should all be the same for the one casting since all the actions the mage takes for the casting are the same, hence my stating that it would be only one die roll.

// //it would have been far simpler and less ambiguous to have said "You may cast the spell a number of times equal to or less than your Mastery score" than it would to say "you may cast a number of copies of the spell equal to or less than your Mastery score".//
Your hypothetical rule would - just like the better worded one from http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=683.44 - still imply, that the caster is allowed to define for each of these spells the effect anew, wouldn't it?//

In which case you may also say "Each casting will have the same effect except for the choice of target; the same target or a different one may be selected for each casting." That would eliminate the implication.

Getting back to an earlier point - you stated:

//A hypothetical rule as in http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=683.41, implying multiple spell casting actions in a single round, breaks the combat system from ArM5 p.171ff, which relies on magi having only one action to cast spells or trigger a magic item at their place in the initiative order. //

Why are you so hung up on this? They are defining one casting action in a period of time. It has already been stated in the description that there are multiple spells being cast (again, in the second paragraph). The question is, whether it is one casting taking care of all of the spells. It would not be a stretch to say that, by the level of mastery of the mage, he has learned how to compress the time to be able to get off the spell, so that he may cast multiples of the spell in the same amount of time that it would take to cast an unmastered spell only once. As the person's Mastery ability over the spell increases, his ability to shorten the individual casting time during shortens enough to allow him to cast even more versions of the spell. This interpretation would be similar to the version of Mastery that allows you to fast cast a formulaic spell - you have learned to cast it fast enough so that you can cast it as a defensive spell. By the rigid definition of the combat rules that you are using, the Fast Casting mastery ability would break the combat rules as much as what Pellinor and I are interpreting the Spell Mastery rules as - you would be able to cast 2 formulaic spells in the same round. We should consider how the abilites work in modifying the spells as well as hanging upon one word ('copy') in order to determine what is going on. You have offered one interpretation, that one casting action can produce copies of one spell, copies of variable quality. I maintain that the game mechanics do not support this, given the multiple die rolls. In addition, I would say that your definition of being able to gain multiple effects from one spell casting is as serious a break of the magic rules as your assertion that our definition would break the combat rules.

//If they were all one casting, all the copies should be exactly the same - requiring only one die roll to resolve the effect of each of the copies.//
Why? The point they must be all cast in one action is the combat system allowing only one normal spellcasting action to each magus each round.
//As there are multiple die rolls, the effects are not quite the same - the power of each spell will vary somewhat, affecting the penetration of each spell. This would mean that they are several spells, and the casting of each one varies slightly.//
All this is right. Just not pertinent to the argument.

////If it were one casting action, ...//
again a non-sequitur, because you unmotivatedly equate action with die roll://

No. I equate one die roll with one casting.//
You obviously - look it up yourself in my quoting you above - erroneously equated a die roll to an action, which in ArM5 is defined on p.171. Multiple Casting allows you to cast several 'copies' or instances of a spell as that action, but does not allow you multiple actions in one turn.

//It would not be a stretch to say that, by the level of mastery of the mage, he has learned how to compress the time to be able to get off the spell, so that he may cast multiples of the spell in the same amount of time that it would take to cast an unmastered spell only once.//
Just that the combat system generally does not speak of amounts of time you need for something, and the only instance when it does (p. 174 about magic) it caused major misunderstandings necessitating a Redcap FAQ entry. Keeping such reasonings like yours above out of rules is essential to keep them readable and working.
Besides, your reasoning also reopens the can of worms of how far your different spells cast together can vary.

//By the rigid definition of the combat rules that you are using, the Fast Casting mastery ability would break the combat rules ...//
It does, as a clearly and cleanly spelled out exception. So it's not a problem.

//In which case you may also say "Each casting will have the same effect except for the choice of target; the same target or a different one may be selected for each casting." That would eliminate the implication.//
Indeed. Now please take a step back, rephrase the entire rule of p.87 as you like it to be, then check for completeness, count the words, and look whether the first one or two phrases still wrap up the entire rule. Perhaps you will then appreciate the ArM5 author's sharp style better. But even if not, with such a full rephrasing you have not proven anything beyond that the rule could have been written in a way you understood better.

Kind regards,

Berengar

////As there are multiple die rolls, the effects are not quite the same - the power of each spell will vary somewhat, affecting the penetration of each spell. This would mean that they are several spells, and the casting of each one varies slightly.//
All this is right. Just not pertinent to the argument.//

Simply untrue. If they were all the result of one action, they should be all the same, and have one die roll to resolve. I do not see that one casting would have a variance of effect. Please inform me how one casting, producing the same effect multiple times, can produce different effects (spell power, penetration) since the one spell casting activity would be the same for all the spells and should therefore produce exactly the same power level. I will still maintain that they are separate spells, with separate subtle differences in each casting of the spell which causes the variations of the spell.

//No. I equate one die roll with one casting.//
You obviously - look it up yourself in my quoting you above - erroneously equated a die roll to an action, which in ArM5 is defined on p.171. Multiple Casting allows you to cast several 'copies' or instances of a spell as that action, but does not allow you multiple actions in one turn.//

If so, I apologize. I equate one die roll with one casting. My position is that you are casting multiple spells. This would be multiple actions given the limitation that it is the same action being repeated with only the choice of target as a potential variable chosen by the spellcaster. This would require multiple castings in the same 'action'.

// //It would not be a stretch to say that, by the level of mastery of the mage, he has learned how to compress the time to be able to get off the spell, so that he may cast multiples of the spell in the same amount of time that it would take to cast an unmastered spell only once.//
Just that the combat system generally does not speak of amounts of time you need for something, and the only instance when it does (p. 174 about magic) it caused major misunderstandings necessitating a Redcap FAQ entry. Keeping such reasonings like yours above out of rules is essential to keep them readable and working.//

Ah, so I'm not allowed to look at the mechanics of the system (what the die roll for each of the spells means) but at the same time I'm not allowed to consider how the multiple casting ability is supposed to work? It seems that we are back to the parsing of specific words, and whether the primary definition of copy (the first one listed) is the correct interpretation, or if the secondary definition is the correct one.

Besides, your reasoning also reopens the can of worms of how far your different spells cast together can vary.//

No, there is no can of worms opened given that there has been put the limitation that you are casting the same spell multiple times, but may choose the same target or a different target for each spell cast.

////By the rigid definition of the combat rules that you are using, the Fast Casting mastery ability would break the combat rules ...//
It does, as a clearly and cleanly spelled out exception. So it's not a problem.//

Ah, so the Fast Casting Mastery is allowed to be an exception to the rule, but you steadfastly refuse to allow Multiple Casting to be an exception, given that you are casting multiple spells? And for that matter, it does not break the combat rules. The rules state "It takes approximately one combat round to cast a spell, unless it is fast cast. Thus, a magus cannot cast more than one normal spell, or a fast cast and a normal spell, in the same round." Note that it does not say one action. Also note that it says one normal spell. We are not dealing with a normal spell, we are dealing with a Mastered Spell. Under Multiple Casting mastery, we know that multiple spells are being cast, as the text clearly states "Each spell must be rolled for separately." From that, it must be deduced that Multiple Casting is an exception to the combat rule, and is not treating the mastered spell as a 'normal' spell in this case.

////In which case you may also say "Each casting will have the same effect except for the choice of target; the same target or a different one may be selected for each casting." That would eliminate the implication.//
Indeed. Now please take a step back, rephrase the entire rule of p.87 as you like it to be, then check for completeness, count the words, and look whether the first one or two phrases still wrap up the entire rule. Perhaps you will then appreciate the ArM5 author's sharp style better. But even if not, with such a full rephrasing you have not proven anything beyond that the rule could have been written in a way you understood better.//

Oh, I do appreciate his style. You do not acknowledge that the rule could have been written more clearly to justify your interpretation. Again, it could have been written more clearly to justify my interpretation. You harp on the use of the word 'copy' without any reference to the word 'original', but do not acknowledge that later in the description, the phrase 'each spell' is used instead of using 'each copy,' which would have been more correct if your interpretion were more correct. You have not pointed out how others' interpretation of 'copy' is wrong except for the absence of the word 'original' yet do not allow for the implication. You have not yet justified how your 'copies' can be different spells with different power without them having been cast as different spells with subtle difference.

//If they were all the result of one action, they should be all the same, and have one die roll to resolve.//
Just an unwarranted conclusion of yours, based on no rule of ArM5. ArM5 p. 171ff provides only one standard action per magus, and an explicit exception for Fast Casting.
//Please inform me how one casting, producing the same effect multiple times, can produce different effects (spell power, penetration) since the one spell casting activity would be the same for all the spells and should therefore produce exactly the same power level.//
Oh, you are assuming I am a magus! To set that right: no, I am not. Reading Ars Magica did not make me understand how to cast spells, or teach me Magic Theory. Branching from a discussion of the wording of rules to a debate on the probable working of magic is just foolish - so I will not indulge you here.

//If so, I apologize.// Accepted.
//My position is that you are casting multiple spells.// I agree to that wording.
//This would require multiple castings in the same 'action'.// Yes, indeed. The point is that a rule needs to distinguish 'casting' clearly from 'action' here, since 'action' is a terminus technicus from the combat chapter.

//It seems that we are back to the parsing of specific words, and whether the primary definition of copy (the first one listed) is the correct interpretation, or if the secondary definition is the correct one.//
That's what you have got yourself involved with.

////Besides, your reasoning also reopens the can of worms of how far your different spells cast together can vary.//

No, there is no can of worms opened given that there has been put the limitation that you are casting the same spell multiple times, but may choose the same target or a different target for each spell cast.//
In your free-wheeling interpretation from http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=683.75 of how ArM5 magic actually works, you had assumed multiple independent casting actions without explaining, how these were tied together so as to allow only targets and die roll results to vary.
Explaining this was - however - nicely and economically accomplished in the written rules by the little word 'copy', which you deem to be superfluous.

//Ah, so the Fast Casting Mastery is allowed to be an exception to the rule, but you steadfastly refuse to allow Multiple Casting to be an exception, ...//
I was telling you that Fast Casting is a clearly spelled out (ArM5 p.83 and p.174) exception to the also clearly spelled out rule (ArM5 p.174 again) of only one spell-casting action per round. Multiple Casting is no such exception by the written rules. If you wish to make it one, go ahead: it is your campaign. But do not use this as an argument in a discussion about how rules should be worded. OK?

//The rules state "It takes approximately one combat round to cast a spell, unless it is fast cast. Thus, a magus cannot cast more than one normal spell, or a fast cast and a normal spell, in the same round." Note that it does not say one action.//
It does say so, however, on ArM5 p.171: "Each party to the combat acts in order of decreasing initiative, ... On its action, the attacker rolls ...". On ArM5 p.174, you have "Magi ... may cast spells at their place in the initiative order" - so at their action.

//You do not acknowledge that the rule could have been written more clearly to justify your interpretation.//
Oh, I do indeed acknowledge that the rule could have been written more clearly. Nearly every text can, often at the cost of boring and annoying the reader, be written still more clearly.

//.. the phrase 'each spell' is used instead of using 'each copy,' which would have been more correct if your interpretion were more correct.//
No. If you use 'copy' as 'instance', each copy of a spell is a spell again (just like each copy of a newspaper is a newspaper). So once you have established that the spells are copies, you can easily go back to calling them spells: you made your point in the beginning, where it mattered.

//You have not pointed out how others' interpretation of 'copy' is wrong except for the absence of the word 'original' ....//
Oh, I did, based indeed on the absence of the reference to an original also cast.
The reasoning is - in case you have not found it yet: if something, whose presence or not is relevant for a subject, is not mentioned in a text which implicitly or explicitly claims to be exhaustive on that subject, then the text states that it is not there.
Example tax declaration: if you do not declare a taxable income, you have declared it not to exist. If the tax officer finds out about this income later, your tax declaration is found to be false.
Example PC datasheet: if it does not list a firewire port, you can be sure there is none.
Example RPG rule book: if a possible rule is not mentioned in the book or any supplement, it is not a rule.

Kind regards,

Berengar

Berengar, you're still at the point you were at last time I wrote: you gave established that your interpretation is plausible, but you refuse to accept that any other could be. You're setting up two standards of proof: your interpretation could have been written more clearly, but hey ho; anyone else's interpretation could have been written more clearly, and as it wasn't it must be incorrect.

The point about using "spells" later is I think a very good one, and I confess that I hadn't really considered the later paragraphs before now. If the author is happy to refer to each instance of the spell as a spell at that point, would it not make more sense - and be concise and unambiguous - to use "spells" instead of "copies of the spell"?

That is: "You can cast several copies of a single mastered spell so that it affects more people, objects or areas (as applicable) than normal. A single target may also be affected more than once. You may cast a number of spells equal to or less than your mastery score. Each spell must be rolled for separately..."

What is the advantage of using "copies of the spell" in this context, if it means exactly the same as "spells" in that context? It takes more words, and opens up an potential ambiguity in that it is possible to read it as requiring an original in addition to the copies (and my informal polls suggest that virtually everyone so reads it). The advantage is... none that I can see.

So far as I can tell, if MS+0 is correct then the author has chosen to use an ambiguous phrase when an unambiguous one would appear to be a more obvious choice. That is possible, but being perhaps unlikely seems to weaken your case even more.

The more this discussion goes on, the more special pleading you seem to need for your interpretation to be preferred: one subset of one dictionary definition of "copies" should be preferred above any other; Occam's Razor should be imported and used out of context; the inconsistency with the preamble should be ignored; game balance at higher levels should be invoked, though it would make the low-level balance rather odd; choice of wording in subsequent paragraphs is irrelevant.

You may still have the correct interpretation, as intended by the author, but if so I really think that (a) it is more by luck than judgement and (b) the position should be clarified heavily in the errata or FAQ.

Cheers,

Pell.R.

//Berengar, you're still at the point you were at last time ...//
Of course I am, and we agreed to disagree. Dr. Tom just rehashed old arguments we already had gone through. So I tried to explain them to him again - in more simple terms to suit him. There's nothing new here for you - which I can't help.

//your interpretation could have been written more clearly, but hey ho;// Where was I unclear?

//The point about using "spells" later is I think a very good one, and I confess that I hadn't really considered the later paragraphs before now. If the author is happy to refer to each instance of the spell as a spell at that point, would it not make more sense - and be concise and unambiguous - to use "spells" instead of "copies of the spell"?//
No. If one wishes to make the point, that the spells cast are copies, in the sense of being instances defined by one set of parameters and diverging only so far, it is sufficient to make that point *once* - hammering it in by repeating that wording again and again is just very bad style.

//What is the advantage of using "copies of the spell" in this context, if it means exactly the same as "spells" in that context?//
It does not mean exactly the same: it stresses in the initial description of Multiple Casting the similarity and common origin of the spells being cast with a single word.

//It takes more words, and opens up an potential ambiguity in that it is possible to read it as requiring an original in addition to the copies (and my informal polls suggest that virtually everyone so reads it).//
I am of the reasoned opinion that the small Occam razor removes that ambiguity you perceive. Your informal poll appears to exclude the English lector consulted by Nejira (see http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=683.32), whose opinion to me certainly is superseding those of all non-pros.

//Occam's Razor should be imported and used out of context;//
No. The thing is called the 'small Occam razor' basically because the root and inspiration of the real, big one.
You can call it differently - but you use the small razor every day, whether you admit it or not. (And yes, I know I will not bring you to admit it.)

Kind regards,

Berengar

////If they were all the result of one action, they should be all the same, and have one die roll to resolve.//
Just an unwarranted conclusion of yours, based on no rule of ArM5. ArM5 p. 171ff provides only one standard action per magus, and an explicit exception for Fast Casting.//

Actually the unwarranted assumption is that it is all based upon one casting action, there is no way to rationalize that one casting action (involving the same words, gestures, etc) produces one effect, as described in the rules. You have multiple spells being cast; this is established as fact. You contend that it is one casting action. If you look in the Ars Magica book, on page 8, the definition of Spell is "An individual use of magic, generally Hermetic Magic." Also note the definition on the same page for formulaic magic: "Spells that have been worked out in detail ahead of time. They have one effect each, but magi can can only use their full power through formulaic spells." Under combat actions, it states "it takes approximately one round to cast a spell, unless it is fast cast. Thus, a magus cannot cast more than one normal spell, or a normal spell and a fast cast spell, in a round" Most people would read the part about casting only one spell in a round, and read that Multiple Casting mastery creates multiple spells (which you agreed that multiple spells are being cast), and conclude that it is an exception to the combat rule. No, you ascribe it all to one casting (a description which is not in the rules itself) and having one spell casting producing multiple effects. You have violated the basic definitions of spells and formulaic spells in trying to have an interpretation that Multiple Casting is not an explicit exception to the combat rules. I would claim that your violations are more egregious than if Multiple Casting were the exception that you deny.

///Please inform me how one casting, producing the same effect multiple times, can produce different effects (spell power, penetration) since the one spell casting activity would be the same for all the spells and should therefore produce exactly the same power level.//
Oh, you are assuming I am a magus! To set that right: no, I am not. Reading Ars Magica did not make me understand how to cast spells, or teach me Magic Theory. Branching from a discussion of the wording of rules to a debate on the probable working of magic is just foolish - so I will not indulge you here.//

Firstly, I was looking for you to justify through the mechanics without violating the other laws and definitions your position.
No, I am not assuming you are a magus. I was assuming that you had some defense for your position. Saying you don't want to debate on the working of magic is a cheap copout on your part.

/No, there is no can of worms opened given that there has been put the limitation that you are casting the same spell multiple times, but may choose the same target or a different target for each spell cast.//
In your free-wheeling interpretation from http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=683.75 of how ArM5 magic actually works, you had assumed multiple independent casting actions without explaining, how these were tied together so as to allow only targets and die roll results to vary.
Explaining this was - however - nicely and economically accomplished in the written rules by the little word 'copy', which you deem to be superfluous.//

As usual, you are wrong again in attributing things to me. I point out that the word 'copy' is superfluous only with your definition of the word copy. If the first definition of copy is used, with an implied original, the word copy is not superfluous at all. And, once again, you set up straw men. And your assertion that the word 'copy' economically accomplishes it in the written rules is actually correct, if you have the correct definitilon of copy. I am pointing out that by your definition of the word copy is is actually not nicely and economically accomplished.

////Ah, so the Fast Casting Mastery is allowed to be an exception to the rule, but you steadfastly refuse to allow Multiple Casting to be an exception, ...//
I was telling you that Fast Casting is a clearly spelled out (ArM5 p.83 and p.174) exception to the also clearly spelled out rule (ArM5 p.174 again) of only one spell-casting action per round. Multiple Casting is no such exception by the written rules. If you wish to make it one, go ahead: it is your campaign. But do not use this as an argument in a discussion about how rules should be worded. OK?//

Actually, it's a dscussion about how multiple casting works, not merely how the rules should be worded. Also, the Multiple Casting rule is also a clear exception in that it clearly states you are casting multiple spells. You claim it can't be true since it violates the combat rules...which must mean that it's an exception!

////.. the phrase 'each spell' is used instead of using 'each copy,' which would have been more correct if your interpretion were more correct.//
No. If you use 'copy' as 'instance', each copy of a spell is a spell again (just like each copy of a newspaper is a newspaper). So once you have established that the spells are copies, you can easily go back to calling them spells: you made your point in the beginning, where it mattered.//

This brings you back to your definition of copy, which is nowhere supported in the rules or mechanics. You cannot show anywhere else in the book where the knowledge of the spell in the person's head is the 'original' (a.k.a. the printing press) and the physical act of casting the spell produces a 'copy' of the spell in the Mythic world. In fact, the definition of a 'spell' (as stated above) is 'an individual use of magic'. Note the word 'use' of magic, not 'knowledge' of magic . For your definition of 'copy' to be right, then the definition of 'spell' is wrong.

Thank you, Pellinor, I'm glad someone saw the point that I was trying to make with the use of 'spells' further in the definition. Unfortunately, based upon Berenger's reply to you:

// //Berengar, you're still at the point you were at last time ...//
Of course I am, and we agreed to disagree. Dr. Tom just rehashed old arguments we already had gone through. So I tried to explain them to him again - in more simple terms to suit him. There's nothing new here for you - which I can't help//

he can't differentiate between mere rehashing, and presentation of new evidence to support our interpretation of the rule....along with the slight 'in more simple terms to suit him'. He also missed that you said you hadn't considered the usage of 'spells' in it and feels there's nothing new for you here, when there is merely nothing new presented from him. Along with the condescension in his first reply to me with the "Yes, I know it's hard barging into a discussion which is going on for more than 60 posts", implying that I can't follow what has been previously said.

I think you have worded the argument better and more concisely than me here, and agree with your final assessment in your last two paragraphs.

Thanks for referring to my post,

Tom

One has to understand, "The Black Knight is Invincible!"...

Regards

- David W

//Guys, you've shed plenty of illumination on these two words. Any more and you'll burn a hole in the page.//

I agree. Sigh!

This is getting, not to use stronger words, ridiculous. And utterly redundant. So I am out.

Kind regards,

Berengar

Forgive me, but by 'out'

Do you mean, "To a finish or conclusion"

or do you mean, "To exhaustion or depletion"

or do you mean, "In a direction away from the inside?"

I'm just looking for some clarification, that's all.

Chuck

Tsk , Tsk Mr Tuura ,
you would have maintained the Moral High Ground if Berengar had been allowed to have the last word :-)

This discussion has had me utterly fascinated , simply because i realize how little i understand my native language.

*Blush*
Well I agree, I don't know anything about english and hardly understand what I'm writing let alone where I am.

I just couldn't not say anything. That's a double negative! Ooops!

My bad!

Chuck

Ravenscroft,

I certainly didn't feel offended by Tuura's post, and can restore him to high ground. ;-)
Yes, you may get tired of discussions about the meaning of words. Especially if people without any philological or literary background get involved in them.

Kind regards,

Berengar

How about "I just couldn't say nothing"?

Hold on, that's even worse... :-)

Cheers,

Pell.R.

For what it's worth, I've shared this discussion with friends who play Ars but have moved away from me. So I'm certain this discussion of multi-cast has become an Ars Magica 'water cooler' event in Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Florida, and Missouri. One of my friends is a philosophy grad student, and he keeps mumbeling, "Copy... copies... copy... copies.."

I find it very entertaining, that one who thinks so much is now thinking even harder.

Chuck

To be honest i dont get tired of the discussions , i know i have a relatively uneducated background (i finished high school) but i admire the creativity of the arguments , not only in this instance but in many of the others i have read.

At no stage did i assume you were offended by the way.

And the winner is:

(according to Berklist from 18.10.05 04:31:04)

.
.
.

I should probably errata it, too.

Multiple Casting (p. 87): Replace the the last sentence of the first
paragraph with "You may cast a number of additional copies of the spell
equal to or less than your Mastery Score."
--
David Chart
Ars Magica Line Editor

> //- Multiple casting lets me do 1 copy per level of mastery. I assume
> that the copies are in addition to the original: ie level one lets me
> cast the spell twice?//

correct

> In the description of Multiple Casting on ArM5 p. 87: "You can cast
> several copies of a single mastered spell so that ... You may cast a
> number of copies of the spell equal to or less than your Mastery Score"
> the first use of 'copies' defines also the meaning of its second use.
> Hence you can at level one only cast the spell once. So Multiple
> casting makes sense only if you intend to push the Mastery beyond level
> one - but then it becomes very powerful, as you already have found out.

false - this needs squashing before it spreads further!
David Chart has admitted (on the Berklist) the description is confusing and proposed an addition to the official ArM5 errata:

>> I should probably errata it, too.
>>
>>Multiple Casting (p. 87): Replace the the last sentence of the first
>>paragraph with "You may cast a number of additional copies of the
>>spell equal to or less than your Mastery Score."

> In Ars 5 if someone multicast (is it?) Words of Unbroken Silence on the > same target, the way I read it the spell affect would likely send the
> same message (two words) at the same time into the one targets mind.
> This is essentially redundant.

you can pick multiple targets for the multi-cast spell
(cf the rules for Multi-cast which state the penalty to the roll to aim a spell at multiple targets)(and are themselves subject to an erratum as they mistakenly say "targeting rolls" - there are no "targetting rolls" in 5e, only "aiming rolls", and then only for the very few Aimed spells.)

thus you can send the same two words to N recipients simulatneously

//And the winner is:

(according to Berklist from 18.10.05 04:31:04)

.
.
.

I should probably errata it, too.

Multiple Casting (p. 87): Replace the the last sentence of the first
paragraph with "You may cast a number of additional copies of the spell
equal to or less than your Mastery Score."
--
David Chart
Ars Magica Line Editor//

Doesn't look like there is a 'winner', if our ninetysomething posts trying to interpret a phrase are made moot by the author declaring that phrase to be erroneous and replacing it with one I suggested in http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=683.14 already: //Otherwise it would have been written "You can cast *additional* copies of a single mastered spell ..." or such.//

But we will get a rule now about which there can be no misunderstanding any more - and that is a benefit for which I voluntarily sacrifice discussions like the one of this thread.

Kind regards,

Berengar

//Doesn't look like there is a 'winner', ... //

After a short discussion the berklist agreed that there are 2 interpretations of copy:

a. several indistinguishable copies of something. An usage common in the printing or software industry (e.g. several copies of a book).
b. an original and copies of the original. e.g. a painting and its copy.

The author decided which interpretation is correct in this context and formulated an errata so
//there can be no misunderstanding any more//.

//After a short discussion the berklist agreed that there are 2 interpretations of copy:

a. several indistinguishable copies of something. An usage common in the printing or software industry (e.g. several copies of a book).
b. an original and copies of the original. e.g. a painting and its copy.//

So we did here. That is just Merriam-Webster, and really needs no discussion.

//The author decided which interpretation is correct in this context and formulated an errata so ...//

The author rather removed the phrase discussed on this thread as erroneous/misleading and replaced it with another one. There is a significant difference between correcting a statement of the rules in errata and explaining its intended interpretation in FAQ.

Kind regards,

Berengar